'The CIA is America's scapegoat'; Former officer: Pelosi 'should be thrown out of her job'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 5/16/09

[JohnHuang2]

Members of the CIA are most likely "seething and outraged" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims the CIA misled her about its use of coersive interrogation methods, according to former CIA officer Larry Johnson.

"She was informed, the Congress was informed," said Johnson.

"This is not the first time Congress has developed a version of Alzheimer's disease in failing to remember what it was told about certain covert operations throughout history."

He spoke with Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND.

[JohnHuang2]

It's looking increasingly likely that we're going to need a Truth Commission to get the truth out of runaway bride look-alike Nancy Pelosi.

First she denied being briefed about how rough Dick Cheney was treating Abu Zubaydah. Then she admitted being briefed but that the rough treatment was still in the planning stage at the time of the briefing which she forgot about. She insisted she was never told the techniques had been used. Then she admitted being told, but that it was a staffer who told her, not CIA briefers. She denied being 'complicit' in secrecy. Then she said the secrecy of the evil torture program kept her from speaking out. Her latest explanation is that the CIA lied to only one member of Congress -- her.

A hint that the San Francisco twit has *stepped in it* big time is the fact that the press is covering it. Even the New York Times notices a problem with Pelosi's several hundred conflicting explanations. Pelosi Defends Her Position on Interrogation Briefings, one headline read. Only on rare occasions does the word "defends" appear in the same headline as a Democrat. Usually, it's Democratic so-and-so stands firmly behind position despite vicious, despicable, right-wing smear . . . or similar fair and balanced headlines.

The media even reported the CIA Director's message to his employees contradicting Pelosi. Pelosi says her discredited explanations are true because the CIA lied to her. Director Leon Panetta wrote in his message that "it is not our practice to mislead Congress," not even Pelosi, who is easy. "As the Agency indicated previously," CIA officers had "briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah," including "the enhanced techniques that had been employed" by the Agency, Panetta vigorously noted -- marking the first time a Democrat said something vigorously nice about the Agency.

"No, no, no . . . it doesn't make me complicit, no," complained Nancy at her bizarre presser Thursday, as she rifled through her notes on when she forgot this and remembered that.

Pelosi is so stupid she didn't realize (until late in the game) that once you start slapping the "torture" label on EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) while admitting you kept quiet, the charge of complicity follows. Having neatly painted herself into the torture corner, she now has to engage in some enhancing of her own, claiming the CIA briefing (that she forgot about but now suddenly recalls vividly) lied to her. She denies knowing about the "torture", despite her torturing us for years with her face.

All of this was to bag the Bush lawyers on a torture rap, but Nancy's hoisted herself on her own petard instead. It's a dumb idea to pick a fight with the CIA and accuse it of lying, so Pelosi did so. Warning: This is your brain on botox.

Most of the pundits are wondering, Was Pelosi lying then or is she lying now? What I want to know is how a moron became House Speaker? Then again, there's B. Hussein.

Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

[JohnHuang2]

Saturday-morning-ping!

[Dallas59]

Pelosi better watch it....she might get a view of a bus....from the underside.

[Bullish]

You know there’s really only one sensible solution to all of this.

Dick Cheney should waterboard Pelosi.

[devane617]

Calgon

[nathanbedford]

Many of us were appalled that the CIA leaked against the Bush administration in a disloyal attempt to alter our policy in Iraq, we believed that there was a fifth column operating within the CIA. It was clear that the whole of the CIA was not involved but there was a significant minority with direct contacts to the New York Times and the Washington Post which had confidence in these news outlets that the CIA leakers would not be exposed.

Now we see elements within the CIA going to war against Nancy Pelosi. Again, we ought not to presume that the whole of the CIA is involved. That portion of the CIA which collaborated with The New York Times against the Bush administration might again leak in favor of Pelosi. In that case we would see a battle erupting within the CIA between two factions.

To further complicate this affair, it is very likely that there is a subterranean war going on between Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader of the house who seeks Pelosi's job and who is her enemy, against the Speaker of the House. It is probable that President Obama is siding with Steny Hoyer against Pelosi.

If this is the case, one would expect to see elements of the CIA lining up with Obama and Hoyer while other elements line up with Pelosi and still other elements supporting the Republican opposition. Under these circumstances the CIA could begin leaking like a sieve.

While this internecine warfare is being waged, it is hard to have confidence that the CIA will be diligently performing its duty to keep us safe. This is a consequence of permitting this agency to play politics over the Iraq war without any penalty being imposed either on the New York Times or on the guilty parties if they could be found. They could hardly have been found without a diligent search.

This is Bush's fault. Indeed, Bush played into the hands of these people with his handling of the Valery Plame affair when he acquiesced in the general proposition that her outing was wrong. He should never have permitted the matter to go to Fitzgerald. He should have pardoned Scooter Libby immediately on conviction or even before. bush should never have given the Medal of Freedom to the director of the CIA, George Tenet, who gave him the worst intelligence advice imaginable over Iraq when he raised his right hand and, referring to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said, "Mr. President it is a slam dunk." Bush's management of the CIA from beginning (the retention of George tenet) to end (the appointment of Porter Goss) has been a history of unrelieved disaster.

Of course it goes without saying that the Democrats are far more guilty than the Bush administration for this state of affairs because it is they who played politics with national security. The fault of the Bush administration was a failure of will, a sin of omission rather than co-mission, a fastidiousness which moved Bush to keep politics away from national security.

The Democrats, in contrast, have behaved despicably in every turn of these affairs beginning with Valery Plame and continuing right through today's pathetic performance by Speaker Pelosi.

Candidate Obama pandered to the lunatic base of his own party and traded away national security to do it. Obama objected to rendition and now has reversed himself. Obama objected to eavesdropping and is now indulging in it. He threatened to close Guantánamo and now is stalling. He released the memos for a political advantage in the teeth of pleas of his own CIA Director which compromised our position around the world, facilitated recruitment by our enemies, and cost us propaganda miseries. He has flip-flopped on the issue of prosecuting Bush administration officials, thus demoralizing career officials within the United States government and in the CIA. He has threatened to release photos of interrogations and then reversed himself on that issue as well. Obama's record as a despicable one of playing politics with our national security. One might add that he has done so ineptly except that the media covers for him as usual and he is wonderfully immune from his own ineptitude. But media cover cannot undo the harm done to our national security.

As I have posted before, the significance of this story is the fact that the culture of the Democrat party now compels Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to lie to avoid admitting that she did not interfere with interrogations that saved American lives.

It betrays the Democrat party for the extreme leftist, anti-American gang it has become.

This affair is but one more example of the shameful willingness of Democrats to compromise national security for political advantage. It is very possible that this fiasco will bring down the Speaker of the House, ostensibly for lying but really for not anticipating the mood swings of her leftist base. If the Democrats are foolish enough to move this matter into hearings or some sort of "Truth Commission," the Republicans' line ought to be that the real story is the Democrats shopping our national security for partisan advantage since Valery Plame. If such hearings are conducted, who knows, maybe the role of George Soros and all of this will actually come out. Certainly the speaker is vulnerable if she must testify under oath in view of the series of contradictions she is made on the record. It may be a question of who comes to the conclusion first, the speaker or her party, that she must get out of the way before she is put under oath.

As Bull Halsey says in my tagline, "attack, repeat, attack."

[jws3sticks]

Great Posting Sir John!

[Caipirabob]

Her latest explanation is that the CIA lied to only one member of Congress -- her.

Yet again protecting our nation against a major security threat?

But no, they did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Pelosi has damaged this nation enough. She needs to be persuaded to step down immediately.

I'd let the CIA handle it, personally, but they are too busy doing their jobs protecting this nation.

[Caipirabob]

Reading your commentaries in the early AM is as enjoyable as eating a big hunk of pie for breakfast. Cheers and thanks for the post.

[PhilDragoo]

Witless for the Prosecution.

Was she lying then, is she lying now, or is she not a chronic and habitual liar.

Playing politics with national security? I did; I didn't. They did; they didn't. Were they doing enough--of what they said was legal--but they mislead me on that, too.

And neither the vile Pelosi nor the poseur Hussein nor the valiant DCI Panetta COSCO-Long Beach III will reveal that these enhanced techniques saved Los Angeles--

--and can we have a do-over on that--can we release KSM on condition he be resettled with full benefits in San Francisco.

To provide for the common defense--this is stated first in our founding documents--

--and stacks last under the infestation of Islamo-friendly Commie apparatchiks--

--able on any given day to confiscate a car company, a bank, seventeen percent of the GDP, double the debt, quadruple the defecit--

--but defend?

No, we slander the defenders--

[csense]

This is all gearing up for the Sunday, morning news talking heads. Expect her to get pounded today. By the time they're done with her on Sunday, she'll be lucky to have any dignity left to show her face at the press conference on Monday announcing her resignation. This is the end of the road for her, right now, as you're watching it. This is the take out.

If she's smart, she'll tender her resignation sometime Sunday before the news cycle starts Monday morning.

[Allegra]

Former officer: Pelosi 'should be thrown out of her job'

Little would please me more.

[MagnoliaB]

“runaway bride look-alike Nancy Pelosi.”

ROFL!!! That was a coffee spitter!

[Free Vulcan]

I’d like her to be where she can do the most damage to her party. We might get just as much mileage if we leave her in there smoldering and fuming.

[Carley]

She was only following the One’s lead in her disdain for the CIA.

[VA40]

It's uncanny!

[2ndDivisionVet]

Related thread:

Krauthammer: Pelosi Is Now At War With The CIA; I Suspect They Will Destroy Her (w/Video)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2251276/posts

[EBH]

I really don't think she has the sense to resign. And the democrats don't have the sense to force her to step down.

It is all talk and nothing will happen. It is a distraction of the kind in which Pelosi is playing the useful idiot.

Check what the other hand is doing right now...

WE need to stop playing into their propaganda news cycle. WE know these hearings are nothing but literal show trials. The administration has reversed on several policies already(torture pictures, tribunals).

Torture hearings my backside, what is the other hand doing?

What happened during the pirate crisis? 0bama signed onto the G20 deal controlling executive pay.

What happened during the swine flu crisis? He fired CEO's and cut advertising budgets.

What happened during the torture show trials?

The first 100 days they shoved through the skeleton of the their agenda. Why? Because they could. The American public would 'wait and see.' Those precious 100 days are gone.

Now, they need the distractions to implement. Stay on focus here folks. We know these are faux hearings. So we need to push them to the side, pull the curtain back and catch them pushing something else through behind our backs.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Members of the CIA are most likely "seething and outraged" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims the CIA misled her about its use of coersive interrogation

Please, spare me the melodrama. More like bemused and chuckling. They love their undeserved reputation as the devious masterminds playing the great game behind the scenes. Pelosi makes them feel important. Has anyone ever accused anyone at the Department of Agriculture of acting deviously or cunningly or amorally? Has an air traffic control supervisor ever been nontrivially accused being power mad or taking initiative outside his authority?

An outraged letter from Panetta? A man who is all but an outsider to the CIA? Kabuki. I ain't buyin' none of it.

[csense]

I really don't think she has the sense to resign. And the democrats don't have the sense to force her to step down. It is all talk and nothing will happen. It is a distraction of the kind in which Pelosi is playing the useful idiot.

He doesn't need a distraction...he has the votes to do anything he wants, and when you have the media in your back pocket, it makes your claim even more absurd.

What you have here is exactly what it looks like. An extreme liberal kook, who took that step over the line, and was too dumb and arrogant to pull herself back in. Now the Democrats have a real serious problem on their hands and it's escalating rapidly. If the Democrats let this go another news cycle, it could escalate to a point where they won't be able to control or contain it, and don't kid yourself into thinking the Democratic Leadership doesn't understand that.

The dogs of war have been set loose, the window of opportunity has been closed. Now it's the Democrat's move, and the smart move is to reign her in as quick as possible, and let the dogs be called back....but if their stupid....

[SkyPilot]

What I want to know is how a moron became House Speaker?

In 2005, several Democrats were leaking to the press that Pelosi might need to be "jettisoned" as Minority leader. They knew her too well, and they knew her shortcomings were more like a chasm.

Well, in 2006 the Dims took the House, and there was no way the first "Woman Speaker!!!!!!" would be denied by the press, by interest groups, by feminists, and by Pelosi herself.

Since 2006, we have had a Speaker who is not only very dumb (I believe her IQ is well below 100), but is also a nasty and vindictive person.

Did you ever have a boss that was stupid, but also mean?

It isn't a very good combination.

During that press conference, you saw what insider Democrats have seen for years. An incompetent liar with a penchant for being so petty she will even blame others for simply allowing their own lungs to perform respiration.

[dixiechick2000]

You know I love you, but...

Larry Johnson?

[dixiechick2000]

Did I miss something?

[Enterprise]

"Pelosi 'should be thrown out of her job'

I'd throw her out - with one of THESE!

[Ann Archy]

OMG! This is the WORST day of my life......I am AGREEING with that HIDEOUS...ODIOUS.....LYING Larry (I’ve got this cool Hitler haircut) Johnson!!

[Enterprise]

We of course, don't know the full extent of the fighting going behind the scenes. Does Hoyer have the votes, independent of the Republicans, to force Pelosi out?

If he doesn't, then Pelosi need not step down, no matter how intense the political and media pressure.

If he does have the votes, it doesn't necessarily signify a good thing for the country, because how do we know if Hoyer is going to be anything other than a bun boy for Obama?

My hope would be that Hoyer would need to get the support of the Republicans and would have to make compromises with them, and that the Republicans would be able to mount serious opposition to onerous legislation. This might be a bit far out, but in a way, the Democrats might be starting to understand that they really do need the Republicans to have the ability to obstruct their agenda. If nothing else, they can complain about the obstructionism of the Republicans. But more subtly, the Democrats understand now that they are on a runaway train with their reckless spending and taxing, and someone, somewhere, needs to step in and bring order to their chaos. (I know, wishful thinking)

Otherwise, Pelosi or Hoyer - a distinction without a difference? What do yo think?

[Ann Archy]

“TRUTH COMMISSSION”....how THIRD WORLD we have become!! This is what AFRICA or South Americ countries do.....

[Ann Archy]

Oh PLease.....Nancy is NEVER....NEVER EVER leaving the Speakership!! She has her clutches on the drapes and she is NEVR letting loose. Besides, she’s a Democrat who LIED.....hey, that’s what they DO!

[csense]

...

[danamco]

Most of the pundits are wondering, Was Pelosi lying then or is she lying now? What I want to know is how a moron became House Speaker? Then again, there's B. Hussein.

See my next post, below....!!!

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI

[mazda77]

The Republicans would be VERY stupid (like it is the first time) to make any kind of deal with Democrat faction that wants her out. Making any deal with them will be quickly broken when it suits their needs. Remember, ultimate power is their goal and they are known for stabbing their “good friends” in the back at every opportunity.

I agree with an earlier poster that she does far more good for conservatives right where she is than to be thrown out. She needs to forever be the face of the Democrat Party in addition to her continued miss-steps will keep her making those rediculous news conferences like last Thursday while she tries to “remember” which lie she told when.

[Terabitten]

Pelosi is so stupid she didn't realize (until late in the game) that once you start slapping the "torture" label on EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) while admitting you kept quiet, the charge of complicity follows.

John, You're close, but there's a larger theme outside DC. What happens to the average leftist when they realize that their leadership actively encouraged / allowed EITs? Their entire "Bush is a criminal" meme falls apart, and suddenly they're forced to deal with the FACT that President Bush was right and they were wrong? That's earth shaking. Suddenly, the very foundations of the Democrat Party are shaken to the core.

It's as if we on the right suddenly discovered that President Bush had been paying off Al Qaeda to not attack us. It's literally that big. This issue has the potential to cause the same sort of rift between the base and the DNC as we currently have between conservatives and the GOP.

[Senator John Blutarski]

SkyPilot wrote: “Since 2006, we have had a Speaker who is not only very dumb (I believe her IQ is well below 100), but is also a nasty and vindictive person.”

..... Nasty? Yes. Vindictive? Absolutely. Dumb? I doubt it.

It behooves us not to underestimate the intelligence of people like Pelosi and her ideological ilk. I personally consider her a vain, preening, arrogant political bully with a terminally over-developed sense of self-importance and entitlement. But I don’t think she is stupid by any measure.

[Terabitten]

I agree with an earlier poster that she does far more good for conservatives right where she is than to be thrown out.

But what's best for the COUNTRY? I'd say that not having her as House Speaker is best for the nation, political factions be damned.

[maica]

Pelosi or Hoyer - a distinction without a difference? What do yo think?

#####

The only difference is the hyena laugh. Steny is as idealogical as Nancy.

[kellynla]

"This is not the first time Congress has developed a version of Alzheimer's disease in failing to remember what it was told about certain covert operations throughout history."

BRAVO!

[maica]

I second your opinion of Ms Pelosi. She is all that you say, including intelligent.

Her lifetime of devotion to the democrat party and to personal power has superseded her practice of critical thinking, and now has her mired in barnyard droppings.

I wish that pundits tomorrow will play the clip of her excuse "I had a war to fight." Say what, ---- a democrat defends herself by claiming that she was fighting a war!? Whassup wit' that? Is that what all the Womyn in Black and Code Pinkos and Peace in Our Time Quakers want to hear?

[nathanbedford]

What do I think? I think you have some damn good questions and ones that are perplexing a lot of people on Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle. I asked much the same question myself yesterday in a different context, how it is that functionaries for the administration who are carrying out the dismantling of our capital structure are going silently along. I think much of what I had to say in that arena applies to what you are asking about some Democrats in the House who, one would think, must be getting very nervous about the legacy they are leaving their children and grandchildren.

Here is part of the reply expressing these questions which you raise and applying them to the administration:

Your observation outlined as your last paragraph tells us why it is so difficult to estimate what this administration will do because you simply cannot trust Obama's motives or believe in his good intentions:

Sceneario 1 is most likely. It has the biggest short term gain for BO and the dems in congress. The economy will seem better for a while as inflation is cranking up. Dems will get elected and they can make the permanent changes they intend. At some point in this sceneario, I suspect a national emergency will make it very “difficult” for them to leave office.

This is the Hugo Chavez scenario and it is not at all as implausible as the Chris Matthews of this world would have the people believe. Those who suspect that this is the Machiavellian motivation behind Obama's otherwise inexplicable spending, are not paranoid right wing nuts. One must accept that accolytes of Saul Alinsky think of a world run by the likes of George Bush ( a democracy under capitalism) is worse than a tyranny imposed by themselves. Thus, they rationalize any reach which perpetuates themselves in power. One simply cannot trust the "patriotism" of the Saul Alinsky acolyte. He would actually believe he is leading his people out of slavery by leading them into Obamaworld.

I am otherwise at a loss to explain Obama's spending spree. The bulk of the spending, as you point out, will not actually occur until some fiscal years down the lane. Therefore, it is not rational to accept that the spending is a reasonable Keynesian stimulus to a current recession. The spending will not stimulate until it occurs and it will not occur now but in years hence. More, nationalization of one of every seven dollars which changes hands in America as it is spent on healthcare cannot but drive us further into deficit spending. Likewise, Cap and Trade can only prolong the recession by imposing additional taxes. Not coincidentally, these are all political power grabs of our economy. Monetizing the bankruptcy of car companies, banks, and insurance companies is to offer a political solution to an economic problem. It is this politicization of an economic problem that forces us to live out one of the three options outlined in your reply number 21. As politics gets us into the mess, one can hardly believe the Democrats will abandon politics to get us out of the mess. It is just too easy and too much in keeping with human nature to take the next political step, to double down, which is to step into tyranny. That is the ultimate political adjustment for economic dislocation.

Let us be intellectually honest. Obama does not act alone, he is surrounded and supported by a group of leftists many of whom are liberals in the sense that they are left-wing Democrats. They are not revolutionaries from the Saul Alinsky school. They include many people like Bernake and Gaithner They are not crying, "stop!" Why not?

Are they not as concerned about the apocalyptic consequences of mindless spending as we conservatives are? After all, finance guys do not see the world as liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, but with the gimlet eye of a man gauging the world from under a green eye shade. I do not believe that they are ideologues, although I readily accept that they are left wing Democrats. Surely one would speak up if he thought his government were hurtling over the Cliff. They do not need the jobs, they already have the fortunes, their reputations are far more important than their rank in government circles. Either they are at a loss to do otherwise or they have confidence in what they are doing. These are strong men with strong egos and it is difficult to believe that they would not speak up if events were running contrary to their convictions.

Perhaps they believe they can ride the tiger. Perhaps they believe there is no other choice. Perhaps they believe they can pull the process up short before we do go over the cliff. Perhaps they believe they can solve our problems with a whiff of inflation, just enough to make our debt tolerable but not enough to wreck the economy. Perhaps they believe in the good intentions of Barak Obama. Perhaps they are merely fighting for time and consider us to be in a welter of disaster which must be stabilized before the greater problems are confronted, or even can be confronted at all. Perhaps they believe that these expenditures and takeovers by Obama are not so great relative to our potential gross national product and these excesses will simply be absorbed by the growth of the country. Perhaps they are mortally scared but do not want panic the country.

At any rate, intellectual honesty compels us to consider why these men are going along. It is difficult for me to understand why they do not remonstrate with Obama over his cap and trade and health-care takeover before the economy is stabilized. One thing is sure, the world ordinarily does not operate as a conspiracy. It does often get blown along the path of a perfect storm, however.

Lock and load.

Since this is after all a political forum, we ought to acknowledge that if the checks and balances normally functioning in our constitutional system are not restored in the 2010 election, they may never be restored .

There might well be men in the House and Senate who are having second thoughts about the consequences of this Bolshevik revolution they are underwriting and maybe a few of them might be approachable with appeals to patriotism and common sense. Yet it must be said that there is no evidence that encourages us that in, fact, this might be the case.

[mo]

“At any rate, intellectual honesty compels us to consider why these men are going along...”

They honestly believe they are doing their job. Think about it. Much of Congress is basically “tenured” especially the Senate. Many have spent 15-40 years “fighting” with Constitutional limits to their “job” ....which is basically what their campaign donors pay them to do. they see a world of opportunity in dismantling those barriers to get things done for their clients.

[nathanbedford]

Respectfully, I think that explanation is too facile especially when one considers the breadth of geographic and economic interests represented by Democrats in Congress. It is too pat and not persuasive to believe that representatives from coal mining districts or energy producing states believe this administration is advancing the interests of their constituents when it openly declares it will put them out of business.

[Grampa Dave]

On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee’s ranking Democrat, on EITs including water boarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

So, who was the director of the CIA, from 9/11 to 2004?

George J. Tenet was the Director of CIA, from 1997–2004 .

Tenet was appointed by President Clinton and approved by Congress. Tenet then became the CIA director in August of 1997.

So, Pelosi is now saying that George Tenet lied to her or ordered his congressional briefers to lie to Nancy.

[mo]

“...not persuasive to believe that representatives from coal mining districts or energy producing states believe this administration is advancing the interests of their constituents when it openly declares it will put them out of business.”

Except that its ALREADY happening...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=epa-ruling-halts-all-new-coal-fired-2008-11-14

The only logical conclusion is that proportional representation is failing in the face of some financial/intellectual ideology.

[nathanbedford]

As I said in my earlier post, I do not think it is a conspiracy but rather a perfect storm.

The media have succeeded in demonizing George Bush and deifying Barak Obama. There is no percentage play for a Democrat who wishes to continue his career in Congress to stick his head up over the parapet. All one has to do is witness the ferocity of the attacks against Joe the Plummer, Miss California, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, and the imminent destruction of Nancy Pelosi, to get a sense of the raw power of this perfect storm.

If I were a Democrat Congressman, I would be looking over my shoulder as if I were living in the age of Stalin's purges only now ostensibly conducted by MoveOn.org on behalf of George Soros. It is hard to fathom the depth of the paranoia which might be flowing under the surface of the Democrat party under these circumstances.

Still, I do not think it is a conspiracy but rather an unspoken awareness that one dare not cross the first black President and count himself as part as a respectable member of his party.

[mo]

I agree that its not a “conspiracy” in the tin-foil hat sense...but that your observation of a “perfect storm” is what I prefer to call a “confluence of interests” ...and the purpose of speculating as to the origins would be to try to devise an antidote. I suspect a restoration of House representation to 1:50000 from the current 1:500000 would do the trick.

[yazoo]

“As Bull Halsey says in my tagline, “attack, repeat, attack.”

Cool quote. Can you clarify what he meant since you tag line is missing the second coma. Did he mean attack, then repeat the attack, or was he simply making sure his commanders understood his order to attack by repeating it?

[Tammy8]

What I don’t understand is why Republicans, who surely must have had the same briefings are not stepping up and saying- yes I was there and she was there and she was briefed...

Republicans seem to be so unwilling to stand up and speak out when it would be the right thing to do.

You can bet if this happened with a R during an R administration the dims that had knowledge would speak out about what happened- they would not shut up until resignations happened and even then would use the issue over and over for leverage.

Republican politicians will sit there even though armed with all the ammo they need against a dim or dim policy and will remain silent and let the issue fade. I just don’t understand it at all. I know the party line is that the Rs are above all that- but when it comes to important issues and the good of the country is at stake they still won’t open their mouths.

[nathanbedford]

"Eats (,) shoots and leaves"

You know I have been meaning to add the comma to my tagline for some time. Halsey meant that his subordinate commander who had sighted the enemy fleet should attack.

But no one who knows the character of William F. Halsey would doubt for a minute that he would expect his subordinate to attack again if the first attack did not finish the job.

I think Halsey would shape up our Republican leaders in a hurry.

There, I just added the comma.

[Enterprise]

Thanks for your in depth answer and analysis. My sense is that there are a lot of people riding the tiger. They might be scared, but it’s too late for them to try to get off. God help us.

[Christian4Bush]

bump