home

Congressional Dem Leaders Must Provide Answers To Cheney's Charge of Complicity In BushCo Illegality

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:50:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Glenn Greenwald writes in more detail on the statements by Vice President Dick Cheney that directly implicate the top Congressional leaders on intelligence matters. Glenn identifies the Dem players:

Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

* Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader)
* Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee)
* Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee)
* Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader [or Tom Daschle, depending on the date of the meeting]).

To coin a phrase - what did they know and when did they know it? And what did they say in response? It has been reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter (PDF). The statements made by Rockefeller in the letter have been challenged by Cheney. At this point, Cheney's gone on the record. So must these Democratic leaders.

Speaking for me only

< Lieberman Campaign Manager Tapped To Be Obama DHS Spokesman | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Congressional Dem Leaders Must Provide Answers To Cheney's Charge of Complicity In BushCo Illegality | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This can't be swept under the rug (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by joanneleon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    although that is what I believe Congress will try to do.

    Complicity or not?  This has been the biggest problem with our Congressional leaders all along.  I believe it has crippled them.

    If they truly have the best interests of the people in mind, and they were complicit, they need to admit it and step down.  If they were not complicit, if they were truly deceived and did not have all the information, for example, then they need to explain what happened.  The answer is likely to be somewhere in the middle, or perhaps they are protecting one or a few of their number.

    But it can't be swept aside and ignored.

    I'm glad Cheney opened the door for this (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    I want the truth to come out, and if it takes down the Dem leadership, so be it. Let them answer for what they have done. I'm sure they thought Cheney would slink out of town quietly and let them off the hook.

    speak up (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    If Reid and Pelsoi can't clear their names immediately with declarations of responsible ADN LEGAL (at the time) actions on their part they need to step down.

    SAF Warrants? (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by ryanwc on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    I'm sympathetic with the idea that people who supported this should suffer the consequences of supporting something illegal and in my view not just unconstitutional, but against the very foundation of our constitutional order.  

    I'm also deeply pessimistic at the idea that such could ever happen if a bipartisan group involving the legislative leaders of the party was behind it.  Unfortunately, such a group will never be held legally accountable.  I hold out the possibility that they aren' all complicit.

    Anyway, to advance the fight, I want to suggest a sound bite.  Assuming people support the status quo ante, which as I understand it allows for emergency tapping with a provision for a warrant to be authorized by the FIS court Shortly After the Fact.  Could we call this the SAF Warrants program (pronounced Safe, of course), and characterize it as safe in nabbing terrorists, safe from abuses by spies, or something like that?

    I'm not a big fan of spying generally, but the minimum for me is that it be directly authorized by a court, meaning that someone outside the chain of command has looked at this and said they agreed it was necessary and useful.  Our Constitution did not foresee executives determining on their own when to respect individual rights.

    Here tis (2.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    GEN. HAYDEN: Lots of questions contained there. Let me try them one at a time.

    First of all, I need to get a statement of fact out here, all right? NSA cannot -- under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay. All right? The attorney general is the one who approves emergency FISA coverage, and the attorney general's standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court. So it's not like you can throw it on for 72 hours.

    Link

    Parent

    well, yeah (none / 0) (#47)
    by ryanwc on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    Shortly after the fact in situations where they actually believe they have a valid reason to do the tap.  If the AG doesn't think the court would approve, then he shouldn't be doing it.   That's the whole point - you can't decide yourself what to tap, and I can live with a situation where you think it's important, and you make a snap decision to listen because you think you've met the court's standard and don't have time to explain to the court first.  

    But no. If you can't explain it to the court, then it's not legit.  

    Parent

    Looks like you agree with Bush's NSA (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:17:21 PM EST
    Welcome aboard

    Parent
    No, what I described (none / 0) (#59)
    by ryanwc on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    is the 78 FISA Act provisions.  The point is they have to be disclosed to the court within 72 hours, individually, and the court can then determine if there are abuses.  While an occasional abuse might be a mistake, a pattern of surveilling people and conversations not allowable under FISA could lead to prosecution.  

    The problem is that the administration has done it completely without oversight, without warrants that state who they're surveilling and why. Meaning, they may be tapping my father again, as I suspect happened when he was a member of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador in the 80's, bringing war refugees here despite the fact that the Reagan administration didn't acknowledge there was a civil war in El Salvador.

    Parent

    They had so little (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 08:13:29 AM EST
    oversight a FISA judge made them change certain provisions. (See the NYT article.)

    Also, I quoted you what Hayden had to say, First they had to get the AG's approval and then the court's within 72 hours for a US Person.

    A US Person would be a citizen or someone lawfully here on a green card. (People in the act of breaking the law don't get the protection of the law.)

    Parent

    Sarcasm alert (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 08:14:36 AM EST
    on the first sentence of comment # 60.

    Parent
    Dance Demos, Dance! (2.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    Perhaps the NYT, who published this on 12/16/05 will be compelled to say who said what.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

    Link

    From the article we know that last year, 2004, the program had additional restrictions added. So who were these people? Obviously Rockefeller leaked the information to others, or else the article couldn't have named him. I think the judge was named at a later date. But who where the others??

    I think the whole thing was a stink bomb launched by the Democrats for political gain with no consideration or "give a hoot" about national defense. But, since the subject has now came back up, shouldn't all the Demo leaders resign and be replaced?

    I mean if you think this is important, don't you agree?

    I am asking for explanations (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    And indeed, if they were complicit, the consequences of being part of this illegality.

    Parent
    I believe then that (2.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    you mean "they suffer the consequences.

    Now, since the NYT reporters know who were involved, should they be forced to name names and give up their sources? After all, a reporter was put in jail and had her career destroyed in the Plame affair for not revealing sources.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    They should not.

    there is no need.

    We know who was there. Cheney told us.

    Parent

    No, he did not. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:26:43 AM EST
    Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller

    See "former officials" and especially "others."

    Link

    Parent

    The "others" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    probably refers to the various CIA/NSA officials who knew about this program and were discussing it with the NYT.  Nothing in the article makes it seem like that number refers to members of Congress.  Obviously many people were involved in implementing the TSP.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    "Probably refers to" hardly qualifies as proof of anything.

    If facts are important, let's have facts.

    Parent

    No criminal prosecution possible (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    under the Speech or Debate clause, as interpreted in US v Gravel. The same principle that would have allowed them to spill the bens free of fear of prosecution protects their decision to remain silent.

    Indeed, they can't even be subpoenaed.

    The only possible consequences come from their colleagues. Censure, removal from leadership, by majority, or removal from their seats by 2/3.

    Parent

    Why do you think Rockefeller (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    was the leaker as opposed to the people that received his letter?  Any grounds for that?

    One of these "officials" is Thomas Tamm.  Does that interfere with your "Democratic conspiracy" theory?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    Rockefeller mailed his letter to Cheney only. Are you saying that Cheney leaked the letter?

    I have no conspiracy theory, I am just going by what the NYT article says.

    Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

    Link

    Note the sentence I have added emphasis to. It clearly shows that Rockefeller spoke to them in the past tense.... before they spoke to the NYT.

    My point is simple. If you want to argue about who told who what, we have Cheney's list and we have the NYT's list. No reason to exclude anyone in this fevered search for the truth.

    Parent

    re: Rockefeller (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    I think it is possible the letter was discussed in the Exec. Branch and not simply put in a safe by Cheney.  I think if Rockefeller had been running around discussing the program with other officials we would have known or it would've been previously discussed.  The DoJ is after Thomas Tamm after all.

    It is unclear what's gone on here.  Cheney says that throughout, from '01 - '04, Congress was briefed and everyone said everything was fine.

    Since Rockefeller's letter is dated '03, it seems difficult to believe that Cheney didn't know that at least one member of that small oversight body was perturbed.  Cheney's neat story is contradicted by the timing of the letter.

    But I agree that they all (including Congressional Dems read into the program) need to be investigated.

    Parent

    follow up (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    this article suggests Rockefeller made his concerns known in the meeting (not just in the letter):

    The letter was written in the summer of 2003, just after Rockefeller had been made vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was his first meeting with the "heavy hitters." The NSA program came up "and I just said I had some concerns."

    The concerns were voiced in a follow-up letter after the meeting to Cheney.

    Cheney is/was not the only person aware of Rockefeller's concerns.  


    Parent

    The NYT article clearly (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    states that Rockefeller discussed the program with others. If you want to assume that it was the evileee Cheney and disbelieve the NYT article that the heroic Rockefeller discussed the top secret program please do so.

    Thomas Tamm has nothing to do with this unless he decided to do what he did after discussing this with Rockefeller and/or others. In that case they may or may/not be guilty of conspiracy and/or other crimes.

    As for further briefings, again from the article.

    Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

    And since the program was changed in '04 I would guess that Cheney was aware that some people were unhappy.

    Parent

    The article does no such thing. (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:52:26 PM EST
    "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV"

    That means the reservations of Rockefeller became known among this group.  It does not mean that he discussed his reservations outside of the confidential meetings held by Cheney.

    As the article I quote from above states, during his first meeting with the "heavy hitters," he expressed his reservations.  That means the entire group went away from the meeting knowing that Rockefeller had reservations.  That group included Tenet, Hayden, and Cheney (possibly their staffers?  I am not sure.)

    There is no conclusive proof that Rockefeller leaked information to these officials.  None.

    Parent

    Oh Please you write (2.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    That means the reservations of Rockefeller became known among this group.  It does not mean that he discussed his reservations outside of the confidential meetings held by Cheney.

    You don't have the vaguest idea of what "that means," but I see no reason you can't speculate. I just think you're wrong.

    If he didn't talk to some one how, pray tell, did they know?

    Do we have an immaculate conversation going on here?

    Parent

    What is so hard to understand? (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    Based on this sentence

    "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV,"

    the only thing we know for sure is that among the officials talking to the NYT, it is known that Sen. Rockefeller expressed reservations.  How did they learn of those?  And is there anything wrong with Rockefeller sharing those if he did?

    The "officials" in the NYT article seem fairly knowledgeable about the program - did Rockefeller tell them about it, then tell them to go to the Times?  Or did they learn about it in the course of their jobs (take Tom Tamm for ex.).  

    Rockefeller's letter is pretty basic and hardly draws any strong conclusions one way or another about the program.  I don't see how there would be any wrongdoing on his part to tell others that he sent a letter after the meeting.  It is a difference between expressing vague opposition, and sharing classified details.  That he is the grandaddy of all leakers, I just don't see.

     

    Parent

    What was wrong (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST
    well, for one thing it breached security on a very important defense program.

    Loose lips sing ships and all that stuff.

    And how did they know??? Are you claiming that he spoke, but only to people that didn't talk to the Times.

    I think you beggar reality by not admitting a really small point if you believe the program was illegal. Rockefeller was involved in the article.

    Parent

    Nothing in the linked article (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    indicates that Sen. Rockefeller spoke to anyone.  Your underlined, italic quotation shows that the clearly referenced "current and former officials" leaked information about Rockefeller--with no implication, whatsoever, that he met with them or leaked to them or had anything to do with them.

    The senior officials went to the NYTimes reporters.  There is nothing here that shows Sen. Rockefeller, or other Democrats, had anything to do with the process.

    Parent

    Good grief (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller

    What is it about, "... have also been expressed by Senator...." don't you understand?

    Expressed: To set forth in words; state.
    To manifest or communicate, as by a gesture; show.

    Link

    Now, what did he do? Go into his office's closet and complain to the hat rack?

    ;-)

    The program was never illegal, and when it was complained about it was changed (2004) yet the Left whined and moaned. Now they want an investigation.

    Works for me. Let's get everyone under oath.

    Parent

    This is of course, not correct (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by cenobite on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:39:16 PM EST
    The program was never illegal

    The program involved generating a database of call routing information from all the telcos (except Qwest, who did not cooperate and was retaliated upon by the administration).

    Routing information is provided by a pen register or the equivalent, and requires a court order per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the USA Patriot Act.

    Tens of millions of pen registers require tens of millions of court orders that were not sought by the administration, as such they were in violation of the law.


    Parent

    No (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    That is your opinion, and since it has never been to court it remains that.

    And when you consider that the US generates 200 billion international calls a year it is difficult to think of any technology that would allow a "drift net" scenario. Throw in domestic and the number becomes huger.

    It has been changed now that calls originating outside the US and routed through the US, but not terminating in the US, but exiting and going to other countries, do not require a warrant.

    And Qwest simply got caught cooking the books. Quite a few telcom types had that happen.

    Parent

    Not categorically legal, as you endlessly claim (none / 0) (#45)
    by cenobite on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    That is your opinion, and since it has never been to court it remains that.

    Then, please, from now on, when you insist this program is legal, please append "IMHO" or the equivalent. Thank you.

    And Qwest simply got caught cooking the books. Quite a few telcom types had that happen.

    Definitely a matter of opinion. You need to learn more about that case. (IIRC, the so-called "cooking" was loss of income due to canceled federal contracts. Which of course could in no way be considered retaliatory. Or the SEC investigation, either.)


    Parent

    Opinion? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:10:25 PM EST
    This is the Internet.

    This is a blog.

    And you want opinion identified?

    That's funny.

    Parent

    Also... (none / 0) (#46)
    by cenobite on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:35:51 PM EST
    And when you consider that the US generates 200 billion international calls a year it is difficult to think of any technology that would allow a "drift net" scenario. Throw in domestic and the number becomes huger.

    Hahahahahaha.

    You mean we'll need a 12 terabyte database to store a year's worth of calls?!

    ...Oracle does 100 TB now, commercially. Not even counting secret special projects for the NSA.


    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    It isn't the storage, that's the easy part. It is the search time, the ID time and the rest of the process that runs into problems.

    And then the intervention and analysis by a human.

    Nope, the focus must be fairly sharp up front or you get piles of probables that no one can ever get to in a reasonable and usable time frame.

    Parent

    His reservations were expressed (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    before Cheney, Hayden, and Tenet in a meeting in 2003.  We learn from the NYT that government officials found out somehow that he had reservations.

    Is it not more likely these officials came to know he had reservations through meetings in the agencies they worked for (CIA, NSA)?  And then in leaking to the NYT mentioned his views?  What makes you think Rockefeller would go directly to officials in the executive branch in confidence?

    Parent

    The commenter's goal here is to imply (none / 0) (#35)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    that Rockefeller & other Democrats leaked this story to the NYTimes.

    "According to those officials and others"

    does not mean, to competent readers of the English language, that Sen. Rockefeller even said anything to the folks described in the article.  The NYTimes doesn't even imply that the leakers heard about the reservations from Rockefeller, himself.  In fact, it looks to me as if Scooter Libby was blathering away to generate cover for the letter linked (PDF) in the initial post for this thread.  Obviously, only Buckshot Cheney & the Senate Intelligence Cmtee. secure spaces knew of the letter or its "expressed" reservations.

    That's not a very long list of possible leakers & the secure spaces are not likely to be very "expressive."

    Parent

    And what makes (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    you think he would not?

    Parent
    Rockefeller implicated by "officials" (none / 0) (#25)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    From the link:
    "This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches." [My underline]

    Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times . . . . [My underline]

    Sen. Rockefeller did not leak information.  The above referenced "current and former officials" leaked information about Rockefeller.  Times-speak for "officials" means administration folks, not representatives & senators.

    The "stink bomb" was not launched by Democrats. it was silver-spooned to multiple NYTimes reporters by former & current NSA & CIA officials; not Rockefeller or other elected Democrats.  The leakers are whistle-blowers who dare not be identified because of the security classifications for this program.

    Parent

    See my #29 (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST


    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#36)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    The American Heritage® Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English (NEW YORK: BARTLEBY.COM, 2000).

    And . . .
    "According to every person in the White House, Jay Rockefeller expressed reservations about coal mining in West Virginia."

    Now, if you believe that, the tooth fairy will put a George W. Bush autographed 3 dollar bill under your pillow tonight.

    Parent

    All I know is what is in (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    the New York Times article. A source that is not known for supporting the administration.

    Why do you find it not believable Rockefeller discussed the situation with one or more of the unnamed officials??

    Parent

    If you want to belive that, go ahead. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 08:49:18 AM EST
    But you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support your conclusion. In fact, your posts indicate a great deal of naivete about how things work. Do you really think a Senator writes a letter to the VP, and they're the only two who know about it? Rockefeller didn't have to "leak" anything. I'm guessing the chief of staff to the ranking Dem on the Intelligence Committee also has a high level security clearance, along with members of the committee staff. Rockefeller could have shared his feelings with many people without breaching security.

    Your speculation reminds me of the claims that Hillary secretly supported NAFTA, because records showed her attending White House meetings on the subject. Take a flimsy shred of evidence, build an entire scenario from it, and then claim that no alternative could possibly be true.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    The letter is handwritten and, according to its content, was sealed and placed in the office safe.

    I find it amusing that you want to argue over what the article said by claiming that Rockefeller, who is the only Congressperson named, said nothing to any of the people that the NYT interviewed. How did these people know that Rockefeller "expressed?"

    You claim I don't know, and I respond that common sense does count for a few things.

    Bring out the investigators and let's get started. Global cooling is producing a long cold winter and it will also be amusing listening to the cries of "I don't remember" and watching the press, and the Left, nod wisely and accept such nonsense as they drink the Kool Aid.

    As they did when Livingstone couldn't remember who hired him, if you want to speak of Hillary. (I don't but I am prepared.)

    Parent

    Nice way to change the subject (none / 0) (#56)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    You said "Obviously Rockefeller leaked the information to others." When I rebutted that, you distorted my point as claiming that Rockefeller never spoke to any of the people interviewed by the Times. Your only conclusion from the flimsy evidence is that Rockefeller must have "leaked" the information. Of course he could have, but you asserted that he "obviously" did. It's certainly possible that he shared the information about the letter with the other Congressional leaders who had been briefed, and it's also possible that Cheney shared the information about the letter. I find it hard to believe that the existence of this letter was known only to Rockefeller and Cheney this entire time.

    I never said Rockefeller couldn't have leaked it. You're the one making the declarative statements with no evidence to back them up.

    Parent

    Heh and heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    We do seem to be mis connecting here.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller

    This article was the first, and at that time, the only public discussion of the program.

    The only way they would know is if he had done so to the authors,

    or one or more of that group identified in the article,

    or if he had done so to someone else who then told one or more of that group,

    or if he told one or more of the people in that group who then told others, or....

    etc, etc.

    Rockefeller told someone.

    Parent

    You seem to be fixated (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChrisO on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 05:02:59 PM EST
    on this one scenario. I don't believe it's ever been claimed that Rockefeller's feeling were known only to him and Cheney. As lilburro posted above, Rockefeller expressed his reservations when he was briefed. Rockefeller could well have discussed his feelings with others who were authorized to know about the program, who then spoke to the Times. I have no way of knowing who spoke to whom, and neither do you. If you want to speculate that Rockefeler leaked, go right ahead. But there are other plausible scenarios. You seem to have selected the one that is most pleasing to you and declared it as incontrovertible fact, despite any evidence.

    Parent
    Harman (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:02:17 AM EST
    also apparently wrote a letter:

    from WaPo

    "Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy."

    The letter was apparently directed to the CIA, not Cheney.

    sorry (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    if the subject is the TSP, Harman was all about that. Greenwald says so here.  

    Parent
    TSP (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:09:56 AM EST
    It seems clear that the Dem protested enhanced interrogation.

    Parent
    I think Cheney's choice (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:15:07 AM EST
    of the TSP for discussion was intentional for that reason.  


    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Judging by Rockefeller's letter (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:21:18 AM EST
    it looks like the Dems might push back like this (a quote from the WaPo article I posted above):

    "Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs."

    Weak tea, esp if Rockefeller was the only one to send a letter.

    Parent

    The strict rules of secrecy (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    are now off. What happened in that meeting?

    Parent
    Dick made some tea (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    And the democrats brought the crumpets. Everyone was delighted by the commity on display

    Parent
    "what did they know" is far the more (none / 0) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST
    important question. I doubt the knew enough to make informed decisions.
    Another question is how well they were informed about how the new intelligence gathering methods were used, and on whom.
    Also, I think Rockefeller can plausibly plead diminished capacity.

    That didn't work for Padilla (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    I don't think it will work here.

    Parent
    silent majority (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    Somehow I doubt that the silent majority gives a fig about the Democrats' alleged complicity; in fact, the majority in all likelihood is sympathetic with that is called illegality by Bushco here.  
    If Obama's first act is to bring down the Democratic leadership over this sort of thing and if Al Qaida follows that with a terrorist attack on American soil then he's toast.  Obama has too much sense for this.  

    grinding my teeth to the gums (none / 0) (#52)
    by weltec2 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:53:22 PM EST
    I suspected this type of complicity before Greenwald's Dec, 9, 2007 article "Democratic Complicity in Bush's Torture Regimen" but I have been grinding my teeth to gums over their complicity ever since. This is certainly not about bringing my own party, the Democratic Party, to its knees. It's about a national healing that is very much needed. It's about a Party healing that is also very much needed. If we ignore an illness like Pelosi(and company)'s complicity to continue untreated, this disease will continue to spread. It's not going to go away by ignoring it.

    more clear (none / 0) (#55)
    by diogenes on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    If Obama throws the Democratic leadership under the bus over this sort of complicity in "illegal" monitoring of conversations, then he will be perceived as a soft target, the sort who might withdraw from Afghanistan in response to a department store bombing (as was planned in Paris) rather than redouble bombings of Al Qaida leaders' residences (as the Israelis would) in response to a bomb being planted in Macys or the Lincoln Tunnel.  

    Congressional Dem Leaders Must Provide Answers To Cheney's Charge of Complicity In BushCo Illegality | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment