By a count of 220 to 215 the House just passed their version of a health care reform bill. One Republican, Anh Cao of New Orleans, joined 219 Democrats to give us change we can believe in!!!
Now its on to the Senate where hopefully Lieberman and Snowe aren't allowed to hijack the bill.
Lets get it done!
Update: Here is the final vote tally. Why in the fuck is Heath Shuler even listed as a Democrat at this point?
Update II: President Obama's statement after the passage of the bill.
Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don't; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.
Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, unveiled the House version of a healthcare reform bill today. The public option isn't of the most robust variety but there is one in there and it's deficit neutral. Its a lot better bill than whatever is going to come out of the Senate so hopefully when they go to conference the final bill will look more like this one.
Update: The CBO score is in and this bill saves over $100 Billion.
Yes BILLION!!!
Somebody go smack every ConservaDem upside the head with the damn printout.
Its about time people start giving Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi her due on health care reform. Hyperbolic jack asses on the left have come after her time and time again with little to no evidence that she was anything but pushing for the strongest form of reform. And all this time she just kept her head down and worked to get the best bill possible. And don't think that her job is all that much easier than Harry Reid's either. She has so many different caucuses to manage in the party that I imagine at time she loses count. But she isn't hiding behind fear of the Blue Dogs as a reason to water down the bill. Instead she is letting the numbers from the strong bill she is putting together speak for themselves and there is no way the House bill doesn't blow away the Senate version. And what is really going to piss them off is that she made it deficit neutral.
A preliminary analysis from CBO may have sealed the deal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to move ahead with a "robust" public option--one that reimburses hospitals and providers at Medicare rates, plus five percent--in the House's health care bill. She is briefing her caucus about the plan's savings tonight, and, pending the approval of a sufficient majority of members, will adopt the measure as part of the complete reform package.
The analysis finds the reconstituted House proposal to be deficit neutral, and require about $870 billion in new spending, over ten years.
The bill remains nominally more expensive than the Senate Finance Committee proposal, but would cover 96 percent of all Americans, providing greater bang for each federal dollar spent. And, aides note, the bill that comes to the floor of the Senate will be a hybrid of the Finance and more expensive HELP Committee bills, so the price is expected to rise.
The move is sure to make progressives ecstatic, and puts Senate leaders, who have been unable to reach any decisions about a public option in their own bill, in an uncomfortable position.
Think about how stupid this is for a moment. The House has put together what is sure to be the better bill. It will likely cost less, be deficit neutral, provide coverage to more people and grant more consumer protections. Why in the hell should there even be a debate about what we are going to do going forward? Oh wait, its because a few paid of Democrats in the Senate aren't sure what side they are on. Well as President Obama said this evening, sometimes we are our own worst enemies but let me amend that for him. Right now Harry Reid is our own worst enemy and he had better get his shit together. If he can't find a way to count to 60 with a public option then after next years election we will find someone who knows how to count to 59 and still push through and up and down vote.
Looks like the Blue Dogs got played by the Queen B:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is nixing a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with negotiations.
Pelosi’s decision to abandon the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.
Pelosi is planning to include a government-run "public option" in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates.
"The speaker is full-steam ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.
Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom represent rural districts where Medicare reimbursement rates are low, vehemently oppose tying the public option to Medicare.
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and a group of fellow Blue Dogs had negotiated a deal with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in July that would remove the link to Medicare. Under that plan, officials with the government-run plan would negotiate individually with providers.
That move, which drew howls of protest from liberal members, prevented the bill from getting stuck in committee. But Ross returned from the August break saying he couldn't support a public option under any circumstances, essentially withdrawing his support for the deal.
Pelosi is now effectively withdrawing her support. In leadership meetings last week, she said the public option in the House bill should be linked to Medicare
A week ago or so some prominent liberal bloggers/journalists cast aspersions on Speaker Pelosi because of some fundraiser she was supposed to attend as if that "proved" she was selling us out on the public option. I hope those people have the decency to come out and admit that they were probably wrong. Especially since the evidence was weak and the allegations were reckless. We have enough irresponsible rhetoric thrown around by the wingnuts, we don't need any more of that kind of stuff coming from friendly fire.
I know a lot of people have issues with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and much of it is warranted. However I think its time that we took a moment and acknowleded that she is putting in some major work for liberals and progressives right now. While everyone is focused on Max Baucus' adventures in the Senate Finance committee with health care reform legislation, what is often overlooked is that Speaker Pelosi has guided all three committees in the House to get some pretty progressive health care reform legislation out of committtee and ready for reconciliation and a floor vote. That wasn't an easy feat and I realize that the bills aren't quite as progressives as some folks would want but you can't deny that she deserves respect for getting it done before the August break. This comes after she found a way to get a cap and trade bill through the House before the previous Congressional break.
And now with word of the White House supposedly backing off of a public option, once again Speaker Pelosi has stepped up to the plate for us.
Nancy Pelosi just blasted out this statement signaling that House Dems are standing firm behind the public option, despite the White House’s apparent softening of support for it over the weekend:
“As the President stated in March, ‘The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there.’
“We agree with the President that a public option will keep insurance companies honest and increase competition.
“There is strong support in the House for a public option. In the House, all three of our bills contain a public option as does the bill from the Senate HELP Committee.
“A public option is the best option to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage.
“The public option brings real reform to lower costs over the 10 year period of the bill.”
Now to be sure she didnt' exactly draw a line in the sand, but ask yourself a question. What other Democratic leader in Congress has done a better job of advocating for progressive policies than Speaker Pelosi? I personally can't think of anyone.
I am not by any means suggesting that people should just forgive and forget some of the things Speaker Pelosi did in the past like taking impeachment off the table for President Bush. But what I am saying is we need to start giving her props when they are due as well.
It is really amazing to me how the mainstream media goes out of its way to excuse any vile and hateful thing that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Yesterday was no exception as Limbaugh used his radio show to compare President Obama and other Democrats in Congress to Hitler and the Nazis. Even though they reported on it most pundits on any of the cable networks just acted as if it was Rush being Rush kind of like baseball fans say its just Manny being Manny.
Thankfully Glenn Greenwald was not going to just let this go away without some pushback. He pointed out how many pundits and Jewish groups condemned MoveOn when a user posted a video comparing George Bush to Hitler. And so he set out to find out if any of those same people would similarly criticize Limbaugh for what he said and condemn him. You can see the responses he gets here.
This is what Cliff May had to say:
It is wrong, outrageous and damaging for Rush Limbaugh to compare Obama to Hitler. . . . Such hyperbole only serves to confuse and trivialize issues much more grave than tax rates and health-care plans.
Now those reactions are good but the one I think most people were waiting to see was from the Anti Defamation League and Abe Foxman. The reason being is that Foxman has been savaging Democrats for years for not being sufficiently pro Israel and because he really came out strong against MoveOn years ago. Well we finally have Foxman's statement and ir reads as follows:
New York, NY, August 7, 2009 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called attempts by some opponents of health care reform to bring Nazi imagery into the debate, "outrageous, deeply offensive and inappropriate" and condemned remarks by talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who compared President Obama's health care logo to a swastika, and policies championed by the Democratic Party to those of the Nazis.
"Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. "Americans should be able to disagree on the issues without coloring it with Nazi imagery and comparisons to Hitler. This is not where the debate should be at all."
In recent days, street protests against President Obama's health care plan have gotten ugly, with some protestors appearing in photographs wearing swastika and SS symbols.
That prompted Rush Limbaugh to remark on his radio program that, "They accuse us of being Nazis, and Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook." He went on to compare certain Democratic Party policies to those of the Nazis.
"Comparisons to the Nazis are deeply offensive and only serve to diminish and trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity and the murder of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust," said Mr. Foxman. "I don't see any comparison here. It's off-center, off-issue and completely inappropriate."
I would have liked something even stronger but I'll take it, that's for sure.
GOPolitico has an article up that I refuse to link to because its so idiotic, meant to paint Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as this unpopular and despised leader who doesn't care about the way the nation sees her. First of all her ratings are still the highest of any Congressional leader from either party. Second of all if she sticks to her guns and helps pass a progressive health care reform bill in the House I'm pretty sure most Democrats won't give a damn about her approval ratings either. At least she isn't afraid to come out and stand up for Democratic principles on the air. Tell me when you have EVER seen Harry Reid do that.
Ed Schultz just proved my point this evening when he challenged two Blue Dog Democrats in the House on whether or not they support a strong public option. As soon as he pressed them on the issue both of them folded up like cheat tents.
Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership of the House should take a look at this video and realize that these clowns will NEVER vote against health care reform when it comes up for a vote. They are cowards and this is one time that it works in our favor!
It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats can fuck up a wet dream. I mean you have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate and yet you STILL can't get together to pass major legislation with out intraparty squabbles and political posturing. Now mind you we kind of expect this in the Senate where the rules are a little different, but this show of disloyalty by the Blue Dogs in the House over health care reform is, in my opinion, beyond the pale. You don't want to be seen as a sheep, ok fine I can deal with that. But to threaten to derail the bill because its basically not Republican enough straight up pisses me off.
Now here is the deal, House leadership has now decided to "delay" the roll out of their draft of the bill to stroke these people's egos. I have to say that I am totally opposed to his gesture of weakness by House leadership. The truth is what this will do is embolden the Blue Dogs to do this kind of thing over and over again at the eleventh hour when progressive legislation is about to be rolled out. It will basically end up being the House's version of a filibuster only this time initiated by our own Party. How sick is that?
So my suggestion is this, MAKE THEM VOTE AGAINST IT. Call their muthafuckin bluff! It sounds good on paper to say that you will vote against a health care reform bill but when the poll numbers show over 70% support for it do you REALLY think they will have the stones to vote against the bill? I sure as hell don't. Remember many of these folks come from districts where the only way they got in was strong support from Democrats. If they lose ANY of that support it won't matter how conservative or moderate they are, the Republicans will beat the shit out of them. So lets see who the hell has the stronger poker hand. Lets see if they are willing to throw their political careers away by voting against a strong public option. Lets see if they want to REALLY align with the party of no. Oh I imagine there might be 5 or even 10 who are that committed to being DINOs but thats about it.
Here is one time when Nancy Pelosi really should shove it right down their damn throat. This isn't EFCA, this isn't cap and trade. This is an issue that polls with higher support than any other thats on the table right now. Its time Democrats started acting like it!
Update: I wanted to post two videos to help make my point. One "Blue Dog", Loretta Sanchez, came out just this morning in opposition to the letter's stance against a public option in health care. In no uncertain terms she expressed her support for a public option and said it was essential for health care reform to reduce costs.
That just shows to me that they don't have a united front on this which is all the more reason to call their bluff.
The second video is of progressive Congressman Keith Ellison showing himself and his colleagues strongly supporting a public option.
Since last night news of a letter that House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee sent to CIA Director Leon Panetta has created a strong buzz. Evidently last month Panetta testified to the committtee about a covert program which had been going on reportedly since 2001 until now and which members of Congress had never been briefed on. Clearly such testimony was at odds with Panetta's much ballyhooed statement on May 15 of earlier this year where he claimed that it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead members of Congress.
That statement was used as a club by the House Republicans to beat up on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her earlier remarks that the CIA lied to her on a regular basis. So obviously this letter was in many ways a political move. But there is a high possibility that it was a policy move as well meant to underscore the need to include a provision in the new Intelligence funding bill set to be voted on in the House in the next few days which would require that the WhiteHouse brief more members of Congress on covert actions. The WhiteHouse has reportedly threatened to veto any bill with such a provision.
But now a possibly more important story is emerging. Above and beyond the question of whether or not Congress was properly briefed on this covert program the bigger deal may be what the program is in the first place. Could it be that this covert program is the same one that Seymore Hersch previously referred to as an assassination squad? Sam Stein of HuffPo examines the possibility.
So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of that ring's apparent existence in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.
"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...
"Congress has no oversight of it," he added. "It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans."
Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo.
Dick Durbin brought the heat to Newt Gingrich today and personally I want and need someone with that kind of temperment as Majority Leader in the Senate. I am almost positive if that had been Harry Reid he not only would have thrown Speaker Pelosi under the bus, he probably would have apologized on her behalf.
What can I say about Michael Steele that hasn't been said before. Honestly after watching Steele wingnut out on FoxNews for the better part of last year, when his name was mentioned as a candidate to chair the RNC I thought it would be a great move.....for Democrats. But I have to admit that even I couldn't have predicted the lengths to which this man would go to help out the Democratic Party. His prolific "foot in mouth" disease is the gift that keeps on giving and it seems he just can't help himself. Having said that I believe that yesterday he out did himself.
First of all I think everyone would acknowledge that if the Republican Party is ever to make a comeback it will need to make inroads into two constituencies that they have not done well with lately, women and minorities. You would think that outreach to those two voting blocks would be one of the chief goals of any new chairman of the RNC. And you know what, maybe it is a goal of Michael Steele, but as usual he has a very odd way of showing it.
Every Friday Steele guest hosts Bill Bennett's radio show. For that reason quite a few liberal and progressive watchdog groups tune in on Friday to catch the gaffes that they at this point can assume the very reliable Steele will give them. So yesterday he presented his fans and foes with this ditty:
STEELE: The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.
Now just because I am a black man doesn't mean I can speak for all other minorities, obviously. However I can say for me that one of the things that pisses me off is when someone implies that the only reason I or any other minorities achieved a level of excellence is because of the color of our skin. It gives the impression that OBVIOUSLY no minority could make it on their own merits, they simply MUST have been helped by some mythical "white liberal guilt". And yet here is Michael Steele trying to further that notion in order to try to delegitimize President Obama, our first black President. But the problem of course is that this notion exists not only in politics but also in the business world. And many minorities have experienced a touch of this in their personal life. The wondering about whether we were "affirmative action" hires. The whispers about our abilities match up with our white counterparts. When Steele says these things on the radio you have to wonder if he thinks that this is the way forward to bring more minorities into the fold of the Republican Party. But then you remember that this is a guy who doesn't "think" much apparently before he speaks.
But Mike Steele wasn't content to just potentially offend minorities yesterday. You see the RNC also put up an attack ad against Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi which was supposed to hit her for saying the CIA lies to Congress "all the time" last week. Now I would like to be able to show you the ad so you could have a frame of reference to how offensive it was but it has since been taken down. But have no fear, Politco has a scathing criticism of the ad up, a criticism that may well have been the very reason why the RNC under Steele's leadership decided to take the ad down.
But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore.”
At least that’s the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week – a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger.”
The RNC video, which begins with the speaker’s head in the iconic spy-series gun sight, implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002. While the P-word is never mentioned directly, in one section the speaker appears in a split screen alongside the Bond nemesis – and the video’s tagline is “Democrats Galore.”
The wisdom of equating the first woman speaker of the House with a character whose first name also happens to be among the most vulgar terms for a part of the female anatomy might be debated – if the RNC were willing to do so, which it was not. An RNC spokesperson refused repeated requests by POLITICO to explain the point of the video, or the intended connection between Pelosi and Galore.
But what isn’t open to debate is that the waterboarding conflict has been accompanied by a cascade of attacks on the speaker, not as a leader or a legislator, but as a woman.
Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as “this bitch”; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined “how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.”
There has also been a steady stream of taunts about the speaker’s appearance, and whether it’s been surgically enhanced. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, “I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we’d see she’d be embarrassed.”
Even erstwhile presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee took the time to pen a poem that begins:
“Here's a story about a lady named Nancy / A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy.”
One might argue that face-lift and fashion gibes are just sauce for the goose these days – especially given the president’s crack about John Boehner’s perma-tan during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
But “hag”? The P-word? Really?
Not only is it bad form, say Democrats and women’s advocates, it’s bad politics. “
They can’t seem to distinguish between a backroom smirk among the boys and something you put out in public,” says former Hillary Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis of the RNC video.
“It’s an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If they’re serious that this is an issue of national security, then you’d think that one would want to debate it on the merits,” she says. “It’s almost as if they can’t help themselves.”
Now make no mistake, I generally don't have a problem with a political ad being a parody or an attempt at humor. But its hard to see this ad as anything other than a hamfisted attack on Speaker Pelosi's femininity. While I support Speaker Pelosi on most issues and I truly believe that she has been honest while discussing the CIA briefings I will be the first one to admit that her handling of the subject was bungled last week in her press conference. There was plenty of fertile ground for the RNC to attack her on the substance of her response, yet they decided to forgo all of that and just go to her looks and "feminine wiles". Seriously. Now I don't imagine that this ad would have offended ALL women in the middle, but I do believe it would have offended many of them. And Michael Steele still decided to put the ad out at a time when the Republican Party is bleeding members from almost every demographic. Way to build that big tent buddy.
Nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to politics and anything can happen between now and the midterms and between now and the next Presidential election in four years, but at some point Michael Steele and the RNC might want to realize that they need PEOPLE to win elections. As long as he keeps pulling this kind of stuff the issues might not even matter. If you can't get enough voters to like your party enough to vote for it's candidates then you won't win many elections. Its just that simple.
What do you want to bet Joe Scarborough doesn't invite Ed Schultz on his show again any time soon? See thats what happens when you challenge a jack ass to back up their rhetoric. When Ed tells Joe to "name one" just check out the look on his face as he tries to bluff and bluster away from the question of which imaginary Democrats are worried about Nancy Pelosi. I only wish more guests on "Morning Joe" would challenge him the same way.
Nancy Pelosi got some support today from an unlikely source, Arlen Specter.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) took the opportunity Wednesday to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has come under fire in recent weeks over a controversy surrounding when she was told of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques being used by the CIA.
"The CIA has a very bad record when it comes to — I was about to say 'candid'; that's too mild — to honesty," Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a lunch address to the American Law Institute. He cited misleading information about the agency's involvement in mining harbors in Nicaragua and the Iran-Contra affair.
"Director [Leon] Panetta says the agency does not make it a habit to misinform Congress. I believe that is true. It is not the policy of the Central Intelligence Agency to misinform Congress," Specter said. "But that doesn't mean that they're all giving out the information."
Because of leaks that have come from Congress, Specter said, he understands the agency's hesitancy to disclose all its information.
"The current controversy involving Speaker Pelosi and the CIA is very unfortunate, in my opinion, because it politicizes the issue and it takes away attention from ... how does the Congress get accurate information from the CIA?" Specter said. "For political gain, people are making headlines."
I am just wondering if any mainstream media outlet is going to get around to pointing out that one of the people bashing Speaker Pelosi for saying the CIA lied to her, Pete Hoekstra, accused the CIA of covering up a crime just last fall.
Seems like the current CIA officials are just about tired of catching hell because of things done by the former CIA officials in the Bush Administration. Earlier today Congressman David Obey sent the CIA a letter detailing a discrepancy between the CIA's report on the intelligence briefings and the memory of a staffer purported by the report to have attended one of the briefings. The CIA has now responded.
“While CIA’s information has Mr. Juola attending briefings on September 19, 2006 and October 11, 2007, there are different recollections of these events, which Mr. Obey’s letter describes. As the agency has pointed out more than once, its list — compiled in response to congressional requests — reflects the records it has. These are notes, memos, and recollections, not transcripts and recordings.”
So now that they have pretty much admitted that they aren't sure about what in the hell went on back then, isn't it time for the mainstream media to start focusing on the CIA's credibility on the issue instead of focusing on Speaker Pelosi's? Im just sayin.
This back and forth between Norah O'Donnell and Matt Yglesias just tipifies how shitty journalism is in this country. The whole time Matty Y is making the case that the Republican pushback on Nancy Pelosi could end up creating the needed buzz for a Truth Commission, Norah O'Donnell won't even consider his point because she is adamant that there won't ever BE an investigation. Never once does it cross her mind that as a journalist on a "cable news" network SHE should be pushing for an investigation also. Nope, she is much more comfortable hiding behind President Obama and his administration's stance that there be no investigation. Its not even worth pointing out to her that President Obama has no ability to block such an investigation should they take it up in Congress. It is amazing how people who have no clue what it means to be a journalist are given a prime platform. You have to wonder why they invited Matty Y on in the first place unless they just wanted to pour cold water on his article in the Daily Beast. Just pathetic.
You would think that with all of the "he said, she said" journalism going on with respect to Speaker Pelosi's quote last week that the CIA misled her that when a prominent antagonist of hers had asserted that she was lying and then had to walk it back on a major "Sunday Show" after seeing the actual CIA documents that it would be plastered all over cable news. And you would be wrong.
“I think these documents will be made public. I think that when they are made public it won’t be crystal clear as to what exactly went on in that briefing. …
“Overall, Chris I think it’s pretty clear the speaker either knew or should have known that these enhanced interrogation techniques were occurring. …
“I think the documents for me are pretty clear. For others they may not be as clear.”
Now why in the world wasn't Representative Hoekstra's word featured prominently on "Morning Joe" today as they tried to impugn Speaker Pelosi's credibility? I think we all know the answer to that. Send this video to as many people in the media as you can via twitter or their email addresses and demand they start focusing on the credibility of the CIA as much as they have been focusing on Speaker Pelosi's.
Posts
