Skip to main content

View Diary: (Global warming) Astroturf: Rockefeller takes on Standard Oil (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I just don't buy anything Rockefeller and Snowe (8+ / 0-)

    do together these days. I consider them both press-release Senators, I'm sorry to say.

    I really can't abide the fact that Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) voted in September for the "torture compromise," for the suspension of habeas corpus, and for the nine-year retroactive immunity against prosecution for those who ordered torture (Abu Ghraib, CIA secret prisons, etc). What the hell was that, a family vote? How does he justify it? You just have to wonder.

    Even Olympia Snowe (R-ME) had the good sense not to show up for that vote. She was the only Senator to miss it, in fact.

    •  Her aunt who raised her died. (0+ / 0-)

      At least, that was what I heard at the time.

    •  Who's pure enough for you? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, A Siegel, Mysticdog

      Really.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

      by kmiddle on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 10:06:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not a purity troll (18+ / 0-)

        But the Military Commissions Act of 1996 was beyond the pale, and I'm hardly the only Kossack to think so.

        Why do Jay Rockefeller and Mary Landrieu support torture? Why do they both support indefinite, open-ended imprisonment without trial, based on hearsay evidence? Why do both Senators apparently think Bush should not be held accountable for ordering torture?

        I am holding them both accountable for their votes, and would like to hear Rockefeller defend his vote in particular. So far, he hasn't deigned to do so.

        •  Military Commissions Act of 2006 n/t (3+ / 0-)
        •  Please (0+ / 0-)

          Jay Rockefeller does not support torture.   You and many other Kossacks are apparently foolish enough to think that if the Democrats just "took a stand" againt Bush he would stop torturing people, etc..  Wake up!  George Bush will ignore Congress just like he's ignored  the Supreme Court (on military tribunals).

          The fact is there is nothing the Democrats in Congress could have done.  You know who you should be angry at?  Bush and the American people who re-elected his punk ass.

          Jay Rockefeller has been a very good senator over the years.  I wish he would have voted against the military tribunals act, but I understand why he didn't.  Voting against the act would not do any real-world good for the detainees (read: Bush is still making the calls and ignoring the other branches) and the politics of the issue are (perceived to be) bad for Democrats.

          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

          by tmendoza on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:37:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and the nine-year retroactive immunity (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zett, suicide blonde

            for those who ordered acts of torture? Why did he vote for that?

            You are ill-informed about the legislation. It gives the President the right to declare individuals (yes, even U.S. citizens) outside the judicial system altogether -- no due process, no right to hear evidence. It gives the President the right to approve specific coercive practices, apparently including waterboarding. There were plenty of Dems who spoke against this legislation, but not Rockefeller.

            Are you really suggesting it was futile for Rockefeller  to vote against this Act, because Bush would just break the laws anyway? That makes no sense.

    •  I can understand (8+ / 0-)

      being pissed off at them for these votes - and that being enough not to vote for them again, but in the meantime, they are still here and what they are writing today is undoubtedly a good thing which should be supported.

      Let's find them other, more palatable, supporters, then.

      •  I'd like Sen. Snowe to elaborate (5+ / 0-)

        on her discussions with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) concerning the "intelligence" which took this country to war. And on her participation in decisions to leave key information out of the two reports from the Republican-controlled committee. What did she know, and when did she know it?

        Funny thing, Sen. Roberts wanting to get off the committee altogether (having chaired it for years). Where will Snowe go?

        •  It's kind of off-topic (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          viedunchat, bustacap, Anna M

          Bashing Senators on unrelated matters when they're doing something worthwhile is counterproductive.

          Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

          by Cream Puff on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:40:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  then don't read my comments (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jerome a Paris, suicide blonde

            and don't bash me for participating in Jerome's diaries, which I read and comment on whether or not they are recommended. I comment early, and I comment often.

            There's nothing wrong with questioning the track record of two Senators who befriended each other on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (Rockefeller is chairman-elect) and who have both, each in their own way, bet on the wrong side of the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 50 years.

            Did Jerome know about Rockefeller's unusual (and deeply disturbing) vote against habeas corpus and for torture? I'm betting no, based on his comment. And from what I've observed of both Senators, you can bet that their call to account from the oil companies is not based on shared populist principles. This is a call to account within safe corporate limits.

            With Snowe, there's always a catch. And lately, so far as Jay Rockefeller is concerned, I fear the catch may be that Americans will never get to the bottom of how deeply our Constitution has been gutted.

            •  I did not know (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              viedunchat, QuickSilver, StrayCat

              and I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive, I wasn't. As I said, I understand that such votes can be enough to take away all or most credibility from them. So you're right to bring it up in any case, as part of the context, and as something that potentially colors their motivations.

              On its own, their letter is a good thing. where it will lead to in terms of actual action, I don't know, and possibly that depends on what their intentions are.

              •  you weren't dismissive, Jerome (4+ / 0-)

                Rockefeller is about to become Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and there's something very wrong about that. Like Olympia Snowe, Rockefeller was one of 77 Senators who voted for the Iraq Resolution in October 2002, despite knowing it was a fait accompli since 9/11. Rockefeller stated in November 2005 (on Fox News) that he had taken "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, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."

                So what's going on here? Rockefeller slices and dices, as if the question of going to war really depended on whether Saddam's aluminum tubes really could be used for uranium centrifuges.

                But Rockefeller knows that's a red herring, of course. And with his vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (McCain's "torture compromise"), he's already voted against holding Bush to account for any violation of the Constitution on torture. He's voted for torture, in fact, and for military tribunals of any American declared outside the law at the President's whim.

                Really, what is going on here? Maybe it's because my mother was friends with a Rockefeller in college (who changed her name), and I knew another one myself. You'll just have to color me skeptical about this family....

    •  John Rockefeller is not Jay Rockefeller (0+ / 0-)

      With all his noble qualities...man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin--Darwin

      by MadScientist on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:17:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site