[glamourcitys]

There's a really interesting letter from Senator Rockefeller to Director of National Intelligence Negroponte, dated Feb. 17, 2006. Here are a few things he said.

On comments made by CIA Director Goss in the NY Times (Feb. 10, 2006) concerning the many negative effects the leaking of classified information cab have:

I am surprised and puzzled, however, that Director Goss chose to lay the blame for this damage on what he describes as misguided whistleblowers. Clearly "leaks" and damaging revelations of intelligence sources and methods are generated primarily by Executive Branch officials pushing a particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of the intelligence agencies. On the Libby leaks "authorized" by Cheney:

This blatant abuse of intelligence information for political purposes is inexcusable, but all too common. Throughout the period leading up to the Iraq war the Administration selectively declassified or leaked information related to Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes, the alleged purchase of uranium, the non-existent operational connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and numerous other issues. On Bush, his domestic spy program, and the December NY Times story:

Rather than offering no comment on the press stories, as is normally done when classified information is leaked, the President chose to selectively declassify aspects of the program that would allow for a public relations campaign to score political points. The President has for the past two months used previously classified information about this program to bolster his political position while simultaneously denying Congress access to information needed to fully understand and evaluate the program. And my favorite part:

Given the Administration's continuing abuse of intelligence information for political purposes, its criticism of leaks is extraordinarily hypocritical. Preventing damage to intelligence sources and methods from media leaks will not be possible until the highest levels of the Administration cease to disclose classified information on a selective basis for political purposes. With Bush, it's all politics, baby - not policy, just politics, time and again.

[Quigoxito]

This is a guy (Jay) who went to the mid east just before we invaded Iraq and told our allies and enemies and the reion alike that 3 days after 9|11 the President had probably decided to invade Iraq. He then has the audacity and gaul to blame this WH for leaking information and take it out on Director Goss who didn't even lay blame at anyone's hands just saying he was disapointed. So this is a Senator who has lambasted an administration for nothing at all, who himself on the eve of war told our enemies that this had been in the planning for years by the President.

[CULTDIAMONDS]

This is a guy (Jay) who went to the mid east just before we invaded Iraq and told our allies and enemies and the reion alike that 3 days after 9|11 the President had probably decided to invade Iraq. He then has the audacity and gaul to blame this WH for leaking information and take it out on Director Goss who didn't even lay blame at anyone's hands just saying he was disapointed. So this is a Senator who has lambasted an administration for nothing at all, who himself on the eve of war told our enemies that this had been in the planning for years by the President.

Does the fact that he is right count for anything?

[riverakathy]

Well not when he's wrong no it doesn't.

[DexOnenlyCymn]

Traveler, you have described the truth...have you learned of PNAC yet?

[cemDrymnVem]

Well not when he's wrong no it doesn't.

I read the quotes from rockefeller's letter and I can't see any factual errors. Could you point them out to me?

[Breeriacoirl]

Well not when he's wrong no it doesn't.

Wrong?

Why Did the US Invade Iraq?

I don’t know why the US invaded Iraq. I’ve pondered it from various angles and still can’t come up with a satisfactory answer. As a human undertaking, of course, there is always the possibility that it doesn’t make sense, or was the result of irrationality. While keeping that possibility in mind, one has to assume rationality in order to perform any kind of analysis. So, operating from the premise that the decision to invade Iraq was made by rational people—even if it was the result of a miscalculation or based on flawed information—I keep returning to the question: why did the US invade Iraq?

The stated reasons for the invasion are transparently false. Informed people knew this before the war. There is no question at this point that the reasons that America gave for the invasion were untrue. First we were told that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of the United States. That’s laughable; Iraq had no territorial or other ambitions against the US. The Iraqi military by 2003 was not even in direct control of two-thirds of Iraq, and was in no position to threaten its neighbors.

The American government consistently took the position that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, allegedly chemical and biological weapons. Let’s assume for the moment that Iraq in fact did posses those weapons. From a military standpoint, so what?

Many countries possess chemical and/or biological weapons, including the United States. Mere possession of a weapon does not constitute a threat. States are rational entities, and rational entities act in their interests. It would not have been in Iraq’s interest to use or export chemical or biological weapons, since doing so would have resulted in an attack
by the United States. The Iraqi leadership knew this. In other words, Iraq was deterred from using any WMDs it might have had against the US, our allies, or any other country in the region, with the exception of Iran.

[icerrelmCam]

This is a guy (Jay) who went to the mid east just before we invaded Iraq and told our allies and enemies and the reion alike that 3 days after 9|11 the President had probably decided to invade Iraq. .....

Well, I can't comment on what Rockefeller may or may not have said ... but there is evidence that attacking Iraq was being seriously considered hours after the 9-11 attacks.

DoD Staffer's Notes from 9/11 Obtained Under FOIA, the outragedmoderates blog, Feb. 16, 2006:

On July 23, 2005, I submitted an electronic Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense seeking DoD staffer Stephen Cambone's notes from meetings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone's notes were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report's reconstruction of the day's events. On February 10, 2006, I received a response from the DoD which includes partially-redacted copies of Cambone's notes. The documents can be viewed as a photo set on Flickr.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld's 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the "[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News' Sept. 4, 2002 report "Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted Rumsfeld's notes as stating: "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward's Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time" line, Cambone's notes from the conversation read: "Hard to get a good case." Complete set of notes

Relevant section of 9-11 Commission report

[Dildos]

First of all, you dont go overseas and tell enemies what we may or may not have been planning. We have also PLANNED lots of things. i bet we have plans for alot of things, just in case.

Secondly, there were plenty of reasons we went into Iraq, they have been gone over time and time again.

Has anyone heard Saddam heusseins tapes just released? no? i wonder why? i wonder why ABC cut out the bad parts of what Saddam said.

It would not have been in Iraqs best interest to export or use weapons? is this guy a total fuckin fool or what? First of all we already used them, secondly, if he just exported them or supported them elsewhere for use in the West, it would have been beneficial for him because then no one could blame one single country.

Its their whole plan and it seems the left is the only ones who have fallen for it hook , line, and sinker

[Thifiadardivy]

First of all, you dont go overseas and tell enemies what we may or may not have been planning. We have also PLANNED lots of things. i bet we have plans for alot of things, just in case.

Secondly, there were plenty of reasons we went into Iraq, they have been gone over time and time again.

Has anyone heard Saddam heusseins tapes just released? no? i wonder why? i wonder why ABC cut out the bad parts of what Saddam said.

It would not have been in Iraqs best interest to export or use weapons? is this guy a total fuckin fool or what? First of all we already used them, secondly, if he just exported them or supported them elsewhere for use in the West, it would have been beneficial for him because then no one could blame one single country.

Its their whole plan and it seems the left is the only ones who have fallen for it hook , line, and sinker

Everybody knew what bush had been planning. Hell, I knew in the fall of 2002 that the invsion was a foregone conclusion and I'm just an average guy who reads the stuff that's available to everyone. Everybody who read the PNAC papers knew it. So there were no "secrets" revealed by rockefeller to anyone.

Second, of course there were reasons for the invasion. They just weren't the reasons we were told.

If noone has heard the saddam tapes then you can bet your bottom dollar there's nothing there because if there was w would have released them with huge fanfare years ago.

It is the CIA who has always pointed out that Iraq had no intention of using those weapons against the US or giving them to terrorists. George Tennet's letter to congress in fall 2002 said so explicitly.

[Cyncceply]

Well, I can't comment on what Rockefeller may or may not have said ... but there is evidence that attacking Iraq was being seriously considered hours after the 9-11 attacks.

You completely missed the point...it wasn't to do with the war in Iraq it was to do with leaks. Irrelevant of whether there were plans to invade Iraq or not the good Senator who lambasted Porter Goss and George Bush actually happened to be selectively leaking intelligence to our enemies overseas which he still to this day can't verify or validate the truth of. Usual double standards of today's democratic party.

[br`lorance]

You completely missed the point...it wasn't to do with the war in Iraq it was to do with leaks. Irrelevant of whether there were plans to invade Iraq or not the good Senator who lambasted Porter Goss and George Bush actually happened to be selectively leaking intelligence to our enemies overseas which he still to this day can't verify or validate the truth of. Usual double standards of today's democratic party.

I missed the point or you failed to make it. You said that Rockefeller was overseas telling secrets, and I said that I can't comment on what Rockefeller may or may not have said. A link to a reputable source would be good - otherwise, you might just be making this stuff up.

If true, then Rockefeller should have known better. Does that let Bush & Co. off the hook today?

You've commented on Rockefeller, but not on the contents of the letter he sent to Negroponte. Do you have no opinion, or would you rather just trash the source (shoot the messenger)?

[Ferkilort]

No credible source??? Rockerfeller himself said that this is what he did on Fox News Sunday a while back which is how everyone found out...he just blurted it out, out of nowhere.

I think him taking a pop at goss for blaming those who actually leaked classified information is outrageous...i mean i know Jay would rather blame Bush for it but Bush didn't leak thw NSA program, didn't leak the secret prison program or the damn identity of Valerie Plame.

For him to say that this WH is playing partisan politics with intelligence is laughable...this is a guy who advocated shutting down the Senate with Harry Reid! I mean he likes throwing temper tantrums! Playing politics? He full well knew of the NSA program from day 1 and did he say anything or object then? Not a chance! When it goes public boy the whole program becomes a partisan football! When he was briefed he didn't object once..at all.

Oh and blaiming the President for de-classifying information? Well if Bush gives out information he seems to be screwed, if not he's screwed. Whether he does talk or not he gets blamed, when he doesn't reveal about info on NSA he getstotalled, when he does about an L.A. terror plot he gets totalled.

[CtEkM8Vq]

No credible source??? Rockerfeller himself said that this is what he did on Fox News Sunday a while back which is how everyone found out...he just blurted it out, out of nowhere.

Well, that's nice, but I didn't happen to catch FOX "News" that day. Do you or do you not have a link that shows he said this? If not, I can conclude you're just making this stuff up. (But if you don't want to bother looking for a link, that's fine, too - I don't care whether Rockefeller said it or not - my post was about his letter to Negroponte.)

I think him taking a pop at goss for blaming those who actually leaked classified information is outrageous... ...For him to say that this WH is playing partisan politics with intelligence is laughable... ... He full well knew of the NSA program from day 1 and did he say anything or object then? ....

Actually, yes, he did ... in a letter to the White House that went unanswered.

But thanks for including some comments on the content of Rockefeller's letter, rather than just ranting about Rockefeller. You surprised me.

To me, it is clear that with classified information and many other things, this White House is nothing BUT partisan politics. When it serves their political agenda, they leak classified information at the drop of a hat ... and when it doesn't suit their political plans, they stonewall every request for information, classified or not. A good example would be their lack of cooperation regarding the Abramhoff scandal.

Oh and blaiming the President for de-classifying information? Well if Bush gives out information he seems to be screwed, if not he's screwed. Whether he does talk or not he gets blamed, when he doesn't reveal about info on NSA he getstotalled, when he does about an L.A. terror plot he gets totalled.

There's no doubt that Bush gets great political advice from Master Rove, and he uses his power as President to selectively de-classify (some would say "leak", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - this once) information to strengthen his case, and continue to hide under the classified tag any information that might weaken his case.

But in the two instances you mention ... with the domestic spy program, Bush has authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on US persons (in violation of federal law and the Constitution) and with the L.A. terror plot, and in an attempt to distract Americans and make himself look like a strong war president, he revealed details that would probably have been better left concealed. In the first case, he is potentially weakening Constitutional protections for American citizens; in the second, he is potentially weakening nation security.