Senator Jay Rockefeller is a phony

As if the media-fueled faux outrage amongst the usual suspects regarding the NYTimes piece that focused on the President authorizing warrantless wiretapping of foreign communications made on our own soil wasn’t enough, the ‘helpless Senator’ act being portrayed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) over his knowledge about the warrantless searches is enough to send those of us truly concerned about how this affects our national security rocketing into space out of sheer frustration.

Here’s more on the helpless Senator act Rockefeller pulled, as commented on by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) – via the Washington Times (emphasis added):

Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the normally apolitical committee, said he was “puzzled” by a letter that Mr. Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, said he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 after one such briefing.

“In his letter … Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it,” Mr. Roberts said in a statement yesterday. “A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools.”

In his 2003 letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rockefeller said the program raised “profound oversight issues” and he regretted that high security of the program prevented him from seeking advice on the matter. Mr. Rockefeller also told Mr. Cheney that he had made a handwritten copy of the letter, which he distributed to the press Monday.

If Mr. Rockefeller had these concerns, Mr. Roberts said, he could have raised them with him or other members of Congress who had been briefed on the program.

“I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together,” Mr. Roberts said. “In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program,” most recently, “two weeks ago.”

So what’s the deal, Mr. Rockefeller? Because it’s come to light on the pages of the NYT, all of a sudden you want to make yourself look like a national security bigshot by (falsely) claiming you ‘had concerns’ about ‘oversight’ but ‘couldn’t say anything’? I guess we’re supposed to believe you really have our best interests at heart, eh?

In two words: bull s–t!

I’d like to know why Senator Rockefeller expects us to take his (as well as the rest of the war underminers in the Senate) supposed concerns about our national security and just ‘how far’ we’ll go to protect ourselves seriously, when last month in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the Senator admitted to visiting three countries in the Middle East back in January 2002 and telling them that he believed the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq (emphasis added):

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The â€“ 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 â€“ that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

I’ve asked this before and I will again: as the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, what was Jay Rockefeller doing in January 2002 alerting Middle Eastern countries, most notably Syria who is a strong ally of Iraq, that he thought the President had made up his mind on Iraq? Why were you discussing US foreign policy about a rogue state with one of that rogue state’s biggest allies, Senator? And why should we take your claims regarding your supposed inability to discuss with anyone what you knew about the President’s authorization of warrantless wiretaps when you very openly admitted last month to discussing incredibly sensitive information (but not even verifiable at the time) about potential US plans to invade a sworn enemy of this country with an ally of that country?

His ‘outrage’ about the wiretapping that he knew about all along but now claims he was helpless to stop is nothing more than an attempt at posturing in front of the cameras in an effort to pump up his (also phony) credentials as a protector of our interests both home and abroad. He may think he’s pulled the wool over the eyes of some, but I haven’t been fooled and I hope as more information comes to light about just how these leaks happened in the first place that maybe more people will find out how you flew out to the Middle East to warn three countries in advance that the President was going to attack Iraq. And then we’ll see where he stacks up against those who really are fighting to protect our interests here and overseas.

(Hat tip for the Wash Times link: ST reader Dana R. Pico)