Bush-Enablers Feinstein and Rockefeller are running scared

by ryeland, Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:18:24 PM EST

Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

And color me skeptical, but I don't believe for a second that Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller are objecting to the Panetta nomination out of concern for U.S. intelligence policy, or even more laughably because they feel left out of the process.

They're not just unhappy, they're worried. And they have good reason to be.

In this case, being a Bush-Enabler just might turn out to be an indictable offense. It's been clear for a while that members of the Democratic congressional leadership may share culpability for illegal acts committed by the Bush Administration.

And, really, we know enough about the Obama transition to recognize that the lack consultation with Lady Feinstein wasn't an oversight. Her heart must have skipped a beat when she heard about Panetta. Government officials who were aware of illegal acts, who may have even expressed consent, are in deep doo-doo if somebody outside of the intelligence community, outside of the closed loop of those who know better, takes the helm of the CIA. And Feinstein must be wondering just why Obama didn't discuss the Panetta nomination with her. Well, he probably didn't discuss it with Cheney either.

Panetta's prior statements about torture and wiretapping make me hopeful that accountability is on the way. But Feinstein and Rockefeller's reactions make me downright optimistic.

Background:

Senator Rockefeller at Center of Torture Storm

Greenwald: Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat

Wire tapping compromise was months in the making

Greenwald: Dianne Feinstein -- Bush's key ally in the Senate -- to support telecom amnesty

Greenwald: Jay Rockefeller channels Dick Cheney's fear-mongering to urge telecom amnesty

Democratic Lawmaker Pushing Immunity Is Newly Flush With Telco Cash

Tags: CIA, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Leon Panetta, torture, U.S. intelligence community, war crimes, warrantless wiretapping (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and Rockefeller

enablers? that's like saying newt was an enabler for allowing bill clinton issuing the formal apology to the black community for tests of VD's done on them.

Come on...

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-05 08:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and Rockefeller are ru

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your analogy. The Bush Administration committed illegal acts. Some Senators knew about it and either failed to act or gave their consent.

by ryeland 2009-01-05 08:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and Rockefeller are ru

Oh was FISA one of them?

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-05 08:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Congressional Immunity

I think that they are in the clear, but they still end up before a judge who makes that determination.

by msaroff 2009-01-07 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers

Feinstein...a Bush enabler...lmao.

This also begs the question: Just what exactly does the CIA chief have to do with domestic prosecution of suspected 'Bush enabling'?

This diary makes no sense.

by moscow 2009-01-05 08:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers

Are you really asking if the CIA Director would be involved with a DOJ investigation of the CIA? Really?

And why don't you go argue with Glenn Greenwald about Feinstein being a Bush-Enabler.

by ryeland 2009-01-05 09:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers

Well, since he wasn't there when all this was happening, he won't be being questioned.

So yes, Im saying that the new CIA director won't be influencing a DOJ investigation of the CIA.

Back to 6th grade civics class with ye!

by moscow 2009-01-05 09:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

What are you saying?

Are you saying that DiFi is somehow indictable for the breaking of FISA? That Rockefeller is indictable for waterboarding or other illegal torture activities?

by JJE 2009-01-05 09:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

The link where Greenwald labels Feinstein a worthless Beltway Democrats is a MUST READ for everyone. It is exactly why I have hated this useless excuse for a democrat as much as I despise Bush republicans. She has a conflict of interest with her husband's war profiteering business. She is elected from a blue state. Is California so pitiful that they do not have a single worthy alternative to her?

by Pravin 2009-01-06 05:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

Pravin,

what policy is it that you disagree with that draws your disdain for her? and how many of the senators voted for it?

Why is she singled out and what makes you think that the majority in this country does not agree with those decisions?

we dems are only but one half of the nation here. DF is right in the middle of road and fair and that's how I like all my dem politicians to be.

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-06 05:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

If you just want to run by polls, civil rights wouldn't have been coming. And at one time, the country was in favor of the iraq war. It was only people like us who actually paid attention to this issue that the war made no sense. Most people do not have such an immense interest in politics or foreign policy to be able to take time from their busy lives to come to the right decision. It is the job of the politicians they elect and trust to do the right thing. Take the iraq war. A senator doesn't support it just because polls say it will be popular with the country at THAT Moment. You support only if it is the wisest course of action bevause what the public really supports is protection of our values and security. It is the senator's job to oppose any foolish decisions by the President and explain clearly to the public why it is in their interests for her to do so. If senators continue to do a bad job explaining why some "moderate" policies have abetted Bushie's right wing decisions, then no shit, the public will stil be sold on the idea that ",moderate" ideas are good for them. i put moderate in quotes because I think moderate has been misused to mean spineless decision making. I do not share lefty ideas on educatiuon and finance. Yet I would get labeled as a lefty by the likes of Dianne Feinstein.

by Pravin 2009-01-06 06:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

as they say 'there goes the neighborhood'. By the standards you have set for her. we might as well chuck obama ( fisa), Biden( iraq war vote) , Hillary ( iraq war vote), ms susan rice who was for the war too( i think) ... you catch my drift.

My point is pravin , you are singling her out for a decision quite frankly , given the actual data ( or the altered data) on WMD at that time - I believe it was a right decision at that time to go in. Because it was done in earnest and not with a war mongers heart. They believed that a President would not cook the books. I believed it and yet I do now believe that it was indeed cooked up- but that's after the fact. you don't have the luxury of a 20/20 hindsight vision when you are told, shown that it is an imminent danger to the country.

Hear me out. If you are told today , with support of overwhelming data ( be it flawed - but one does not know about it at that moment of time)that there is an imminent threat. added to it - You have the history of Saddam funding Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons and you have Saddam himself letting that WMD charge linger. Then you must act on it.

On one hand we blame Bush for missing signs of 911 and not acting on it ( as vague as there were) and then we blame our senators for acting on what was even being pushed( notion) by the Iraqi dictator himself?

To believe that they( senators) were malicious and intentional in starting a war is making an equally cooked up assumption that they the senators who voted are war mongers in spirit.

Saddam was quoted as saying ' he wanted the perception to linger about Iraq having chemical , biological, wmd's because 'He' wanted Iran to believe it and never thought it would backfire on him'.

by MumbaiBurns 2009-01-06 07:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

It wasn't just asingle war vote. The totality of her attitude towards such issues.

by Pravin 2009-01-06 09:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bush-Enablers Feinstein and R

That is why I have low respect for senators in general. I wasn't fooled by the blatant attempt to cook intelligence. There were leaks in the blogs back then of whistleblowers complaining about the neocon agenda. Back in the 90s, PNAC was not shy about stating their goals for this region.

There is no excuse. And if a senator was fooled, I expect them to make amends for it later on. Murtha did. Edwards did. Kerry did. Feinstein who sits on such an important committee didn't do enough.

by Pravin 2009-01-06 09:11AM | 0 recs