Did Jay Rockefeller betray the USA?

Me, too. And a couple of Democratic Congressman who went and visited Saddam before the war, also.

 

This whole band of mega liberals that have aided and abetted and given comfort to the enemy since the war began. Try them all.

 

The Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq was a secret? Does a US senator have the authority of the United States? I would think so, more than a former California governor who traded arms for hostages....

Does that mean if you write Burmese Prime Minister, Gen. Soe Win, to protest the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi or to Chinese President Hu Jintao to protest the oppression of Christian missionaries, you should be imprisoned and fined?

So yeah, haul Rockefeller before the courts, but keep in mind that many Republicans could be just as liable when the polical winds shift...and they will.

 

A case could certainly be made that he was in violation of the Logan Act or something even more serious.

Reality is that Senators rarely hold their own members accountable for such breaches of security or the law. Although, Kerry and Harkin were at one time censured on the floor of the Senate for violation of the Logan Act, but no legal action was taken.

It appears Rockefeller was merely stating his own biased opinion and very likely his listeners knew it.

 

Yeah, apparently it's pretty easy to violate that section.

What was it they did? They spoke to the legitimate government of Nicaragua about ending US support for those terrorists that Reagan loved. That was truly heinous.

Biased yet correct.

 

The Logan Act was enacted in 1799, and the aforementioned clause is so nebulous and generic that it's almost unenforceable. The fact that no one's ever been convicted of it attests that that fact. Since selective enforcement of a law is not permitted, our jails would be overflowing with not just politicians, but many every day citizens.

 

The powers that be in the Bush administrtion had made their plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11, September 11th was just the new "Pearl Harbor" that they were waiting for to help them justify their invasion to Congress and the American public.

 

Yeah, it was excusable for Kerry. After all, he was a novice Senator and everyone already knew how much he liked to cozy up to communists.

 

Surely you aren't serious!

Senator Rockefeller is only saying what many have known to be the truth for years.

 

That is not true as I prove before when you brought up this false charge using the term "Pearl Harbor". I actually read that portion of the PNAC document.

 

Not so.

But I would just let Senator Rockefeller go on this matter. Maybe enough moderates in the Democratic Party(such Senators Lincoln and Pryor from Arkansas and my Congressman, Mike Ross) will finally say "Enough!" with these far out liberals in their party and reclaim their party from them so that the Democrats might one day again put forward a presidential nominee that I could support.

 

That is not true as I prove before when you brought up this false charge using the term "Pearl Harbor". I actually read that portion of the PNAC document. </font>[/QUOTE]I read the document that states that they would like to invade Iraq and other countries but the only way that they would be able to get the public support would be if there were "another Pearl Harbor". I believe that this means what it says, you did untill you voted for Bush, but now you do not. We will just have to respectfully agree to disagree about this.

 

Jonathan,

You are totally distorting that section of the document. Here is what the Section V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", is about:

"To preserve American military
preeminence in the coming decades, the
Department of Defense must move more
aggressively to experiment with new
technologies and operational concepts, and
seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs. Information technologies,
in particular, are becoming more prevalent
and significant components of modern
military systems. These information technologies
are having the same kind of transforming
effects on military affairs as they
are having in the larger world. The effects
of this military transformation will have
profound implications for how wars are
fought, what kinds of weapons will
dominate the battlefield and, inevitably,
which nations enjoy military preeminence...

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus,
this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades."

- "Rebuilding America's Defenses", pp. 50-51.
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

As can be seen, this section has nothing to do with invading another country. It is talking about military technologies and that transforming the military with these new technologies will be a slow go absent a catastrophic event.

I think you are reading your anti-neocon bias into this section of the document, Jonathan, instead of dealing with the section objectively.

[ November 16, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

No,I am just reading that section in the context of the entire document, not taking one section and ignoring the rest. As you read the entire document you see that the reason for "transforming the military with these new technologies" is to remove Saddam and other regimes, set up a permenent presence in the Middle East in an attempt to bring global peace.

p. 26

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

p. 27

"The continuing challenges from Iraq also make it unwise to draw down forces in the Gulf dramatically. Securing the American perimeter today – and tomorrow – will necessitate shifts in U.S. overseas operations."

p. 29

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

p. 37

"The need to respond with decisive force in the event of a major theater war in Europe, the Persian Gulf or East Asia will remain the principal factor in determining Army force structure for U.S.-based units. However one judges the likelihood of such wars occurring, it is essential to retain sufficient capabilities to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion, including the possibility of a decisive victory that results in long-term political or regime change."

p 42.

"Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion."

pp. 51-52

"When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of conventional forces. That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad. And one, North Korea, is on the verge of deploying missiles that can hit the American homeland. Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace."

So when they say, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.", they are talking about the whole process of transformation, including not only "transforming the military with these new technologies", but invading nations like Iraq for the purpose of regime change and establishing a permanent US military presence in the Middle East.

Remember Ken, you used to believe the same thing about this document right up till you decided to vote for Bush out of fear of Kerry.

 

I have no problem with the wise use of forward basing. We did it quite successfully in the Cold War and it helped to prevent another world war in Europe.

You should admit, Jonathan, that the "Pearl Harbor" theme was used in connection with technological transformation, not with the idea of invading Iraq. You are being dishonest to state, or even imply, otherwise.

 

I believe the "Pearl Harbor" statement was used in connection with a "technological transformation" that would be required to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. We saw that "technological transformation" in the form of Shock & Awe when we started the invasion. I am not one of the conspiracy theorist who believe the Bush administration was behind 9/11 or even knew about it ahead of time, I just believe they knew that they couldn't pass up the chance to use 9/11 to justify their invasion of Iraq and to start the process of putting a permenant military presence in Iraq.

I totally support defending our nation, going after terrorist, but I don't support the neo-con idea of nation building expreiments in democracy around the world while ignoring the constitutional requirement of defending our borders here at home.

We both have read the PNAC document, we used to agree on what it meant, we may agree again down the road, but for now we will just have to agree to disagree.

Back to the OP, regardless of wether what Rockefeller did was right or wrong, anyone who was paying even the slightest attention knew that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

 

Then you believe wrongly. Minor parties, and their adherents, will certainly continue to fail to achieve anything of significance politically unless and until they can deal with the issues straightforwardly and not attempt to cherry pick a phrase here and there, and take it out of context to attempt to make a point.

 

Like I said, I am taking nothing out of context, but instead reading the quote in the context of the entire document. Just remember it was just a little more than a year ago that you agreed with us, right up untill you said that you would vote for Bush out of fear of Kerry. Then you changed your view on the issues once again.

 

I recall nothing during the previous less than 8 months of the Bush administration prior to 9/11/2001 that indicated it was planning to invade Iraq.