The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was a Jordanian informant who lured intelligence officers into a trap by promising new information about al-Qaeda's top leadership, former U.S. government officials said Monday.
Here's the story in a nutshell. Jordanian intelligence recruited this individual to infiltrate Al Qaeda. The CIA began to work with him. He gained their trust. So, he was able to bypass security in Afghanistan. He walked into an area in which 7 CIA members were located and blew himself up. He was in fact an Al Qaeda double agent.
The ramifications are huge. First, these were seven top CIA agents. They're dead. Second, someone in the Jordanian intelligence recruited them and so they vetted them. What does this do to our relationship with them? Third, this was some plot. This guy passes himself off as an informant all while actually working with Al Qaeda.
We're all fixated on the airport plot meanwhile, this guy infiltrates the CIA and kills seven. Who knows how much intelligence he gave to Al Qaeda. Yet, this story is buried while we hyperanalyze the airport bombing.
I think it's time for the country to face reality. Our President is lost. There's not one major issue that we can reasonably say he has a good handle on. Instead, on every major issue, it appears as though there's a grand piano hanging over him being held up by a small string. What the president needs is to find some direction, and quickly.
1) Gitmo
Talk about a disaster. In fact, there's no bigger disaster than GITMO. Then only reason it hasn't had more attention is that this disaster won't be official until January of next year. That's when the president will have had to move each of the detainees to destinations still unknown. His first mistake was arrogantly pronouncing that GITMO would be closed within a year on his second day in office. As such, he sowed the seeds of his own destruction in only his second day on the job.
It's clear that he has no plan where to move these folks. In August, a town hall was held in the town of Standish, Michigan. Standish is a site that the administration is considering moving some or all of the GITMO detainees. Here's how that went.
You can bet that anywhere in America the reaction will be the same to the reaction in Standish. On top of this, moving them overseas is also not an option. Beyond this, most countries claim that if these folks are safe to incarcerate, the U.S. should do it on its own.
So, we're less than five months away from the day that GITMO must be closed per the Presidential order that President Obama himself, and he has no clue how he's going to exact that order. He's a president in serious need of direction.
2)Afghanistan It's not getting much media attention, but Afghanistan looks worse than Iraq ever did. We had our worst death totals for any month in the month of August. That topped July's totals by two which held the record for one month. The situation is spinning out of control and the president had this stunning statement in July.
We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States." …"We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.
The General in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, just came out with this assessment.
That's sobering and stark. It remains to be seen if President Obama will give the general the resources he needs to win. It actually remains to be seen how committed he is to victory at all. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and the president has barely even mentioned it in speeches. He's made little mention of Afghanistan. This was supposed to be the good war and yet, it's not totally clear that the president has the commitment to win. Again, the president is in need of direction.
3)Iran Remember when the president was making videos that were overtures to the government and the people of Iran. Those are gone. In fact, the president's policy toward Iran has gone into neutral ever since the aftermath of the election. The president refused to choose sides. As such, he gave an implicit approval of the crackdown.
Yet, since then, his entire policy is now in disarray. The president won't side with the revolutionaries. He won't come out firmly on the side of those that are attempting to bring democracy to Iran. Yet, he can't very well try and reach out to the Ahmadinejad government either.
So, where does that leave his policy toward Iran? It leaves it in disarray. He has no policy toward Iran. He isn't siding with the forces against the government. He isn't siding with the government. He also isn't siding with opponents of the government. He isn't engaging Iran but he also isn't trying to isolate Iran. We, unfortunately, don't have time to waste. It's months if not years before Iran is successful in creating a nuclear bomb and then the game changes entirely. Let's hope the president gets some direction soon.
4)Health care The president's leadeship on health care has been so non existent that it's frankly laughable. The democrats are fighting themselves, the media, the tea parties, and anyone else. It's effective to pick and choose enemies in politics but everyone can't be your enemy and right now that's where the Democrats are. It's entirely the fault of the president. He refuses to take a stand on anything and he continues to defend everything. As such, no one really knows what direction the bill should go. So, the liberals create a liberal bill. The moderates scream and the Senate can't get a compromise. All of it is played out in front of the public on television, the internet, the newspapers and radio. The president is simply lost and in need of direction.
5) GWOT Right now, the Justice department is investigating the CIA. The CIA is no longer in charge of interrogating high value detainees. Instead, a unit run from the White House will be in charge of run these interrogations. At the same time, the interrogations will be limited to the Army Field Manual. This September 1th will be marked as a National Day of Service. GITMO is a mess. Afghanistan is disintegrating. Even our gains in Iraq are being lost since we pulled back. What's the strategy? It's unclear. It appears the administration is more aggressive in prosecuting its own than the terrorists. Once again, the president is lost.
There are several questions that continue to surround the latest revelations in the CIA's EIT program. First, are waterboarding and other EIT techniques in fact torture? Whether these techniques worked or not, was it worth it? Could we have gotten any information from some detainees without using them? Finally, did we get valuable intelligence following the use of these techniques? Most of these questions are tangential. In that, there is no objective way to look at it and so your answer likely depends on your political ideology. Most will continue to be debated long after the release of the lateste memos.
Here's what's no longer debateable. Both Khalid Sheikh Muhammand and Abu Zubaydah account for an enormous amount of what we know about Al Qaeda in general. We know that both were in the top three in the leadership of Al Qaeda. We know that both were eventually waterboarded. We also know that both were initially not very cooperative but only became cooperative after the waterboarding.
That certainly doesn't answer the question about whether or not water boarding is torture. It doesn't answer the question about whether or not it's worth it. As Juan Williams points out, in a Democracy "we don't torture, period", and we don't say "it's all right to torture because it lead to a lot of information". It's hard however to argue the last two points any more. Because of the sensitivity of the matter, most of the details of the interrogations were redacted. What wasn't redacted was 1) both KSM and Zubaydah were initially not very talkative and 2)both were subjected to EIT's. Now, it's not very hard to connect the dots here. We tried standard interrogation methods and they didn't work. We tried some alternatives. Some of these were very tought and they did work.
There is a popular argument, made especially by John McCain, that if you torture someone they will tell you anything and most won't be true. That is certainly true, but the results speak for themselves. The memos make clear that both KSM and Zubaydah were a "rolo dex of information on Al Qaeda." That is how the interrogators analyzed the information that these two gave to interrogators. Both were initially not cooperative. Both were eventually waterboarded. Both eventually began singing like canaries. Is someone going to really say that waterboarding didn't work on these two? Are they really going to say that we could have gotten information from them in another way?
It's very hard to make the moral argument that even if waterboarding saves lives it's not worth it. That is taking a theoretical argument to an extreme that very few will agree with. If Americans have a decision between waterboarding a terrorist and losing American lives, most will choose waterboarding a terrorist. As such, most of those that make that argument will also claim that it doens't work. That's a much stronger argument. Not only is it immoral, but it doesn't work. It's a difficult argument to disprove. Yet, we now have overwhelming evidence that this is simply not so. If someone wants to claim that waterboarding is wrong no matter what the ends, that's one thing. If they want to claim that it doesn't work, that's now no longer an argument someone can make.
For obvious reasons, it's unlikely this story will get much media attention.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former high-ranking members of his administration won't be criminally charged in a yearlong federal investigation into pay-to-play allegations involving one of the Democratic governor's large political donors, someone familiar with the case said.
The decision not to pursue indictments was made by top Justice Department officials, according to a person familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because federal officials had not disclosed results of the probe. "It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.
Now, also for obvious reasons, we all know about this Justice Department decision this week.
Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to examine alleged CIA interrogation abuses — a move that could lead to the criminal prosecution of CIA officers and contractors and is sure rekindle the debate over how far the United States should go to get information from terror suspects.
Finally, some are probably familiar with the decision earlier in the summer not to prosecute three Black Panthers that stood outside of a polling station with billy clubs.
Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.
The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.
Just so everyone is clear here's visual evidence of the crime.
Now AG Holder has stipulated that his investigation into potential CIA abuses was necessary because he is "following the law". This is of course not only disingenuous but totally misleading. Like all prosecutors, the AG has prosecutorial discretion. After all, if we prosecuted all violations of the law, the system would simply break. J walking is not technically legal but cops aren't going to ticket you for it.
So, in fact, we can tell the priorities of a prosecutor by the cases the choose to proceed with and the ones they choose to ignore. In this case, the AG has decided to re open several cases that had already been investigated and prior prosecutors had decided not to proceed with. He did this under the guise that he was "following the law". Yet, when presented with clear visual evidence of the violation of the law, he does nothing. When presented with a politician that is involved in corruption, he buries that investigation. We all now know where the priorities of our Justice Department are at.
They say that elections have consequences. That's true. With every new administration there is a new set of policies. Bush had policies that he went forward with and now Obama has a whole different set of policies. In banana republics, elections also have consequences. In those countries, policy differences are prosecuted. Throughout Africa and in parts of South America, with each new administration, there is a set of indictments and convictions of previous administrations.
I have said that if in fact CIA agents were rogue and not following orders they should be prosecuted. Yet, there is a very troubling aspect to this. The Bush justice department took a look at the cases that are in question and decided that only one person faced prosecution. This individual did and is currently incarcerated. So, why are we reviewing these cases again? It wasn't as though only political appointees looked at these cases? It was career lawyers as well as political appointees. Was everyone incompetent and or corrupt? So, why is the Obama justice department suddenly in need of reviewing these cases? How many times will they be reviewed?
It's one thing to change policies you disagree with. The Obama administration believes that we can extract information from terrorists through the same means that police use to extract information from criminals. That's their right and that is the policy they are choosing. Yet, Attorney General Eric Holder wants to take it a step further. He wants to review how the previous administration reviewed its own policies. Nothing has changed. The evidence hasn't changed. When Bush Justice Department lawyers looked at it they only prosecuted one person. Now, Obama Justice Department lawyers want to potentially prosecute even more.
The political dance doesn't stop there. Holder doesn't want to prosecute anyone just yet. Instead, he has appointed a special counsel to investigate the matter. This is after he investigated the matter to see if there is any wrongdoing. So, let's take stock. Bush administration lawyers looked at the evidence and found one person that needed to be prosecuted. Then, Holder investigated the cases again. He didn't find enough evidence to prosecute, but rather enough evidence to investigate some more. That's two different administrations that have investigated the matter and still that's not enough investigation.
This isn't quite prosecuting the prior administration for policy differences but frankly, that's an impossibility in the U.S. This is as close as we will get. It would be far too explosive to actually prosecute prior Bush officials. This is the second best choice. Instead, this administration purports to prosecute those the Bush administration investigated and didn't prosecute. It's the only way to prosecute the Bush administration. Furthermore, Holder continues to say that he is following the law, implying that Bush didn't. Yet, while following the law, he won't actually indict anyone himself. By following the law, he means that after his own investigation he thinks that more investigation is warranted. What sort of law tells the Justice Department to engage in endless investigations?
Endless investigations are the hallmark of witch hunts. We are not quite into the category of banana republics. It's unlikely that the U.S. would ever get there. This is the closest thing that we will get. Going after Bush is too overt. Even going after the lawyers is too overt. Instead, there is an endless investigation that will investigate that which has already been investigated. The problem is that once you go down that slippery slope there are all sorts of unintended consequences. The next administration will investigate Obama for forcing people to buy health insurance Unconstitutionally. Once you open the door on prosecuting policy differences that door won't ever close and we never know what will be opened once the door is opened.
Today, the news cycle was dominated by news related to intelligence. Let's start with this story about potential CIA investigations.
After months of consideration, Attorney General Eric Holder plans to appoint a special prosecutor to examine allegations that terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators.
The highly controversial decision comes as the Department of Justice releases a 2004 report from the CIA's inspector general detailing allegations of harsh interrogation practices -- which Holder cited in his decision.
"As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations," Holder said in a written statement Monday.
There may still be plenty of reason to be upset. That said, the WAPO article makes clear that the investigation is only going after "rogue" CIA agents that stepped outside of the guidelines set up justice department lawyers. The article goes on to state that no lawyers would be targeted and that all CIA employees that followed guidelines would NOT be targeted.
For all those that believe that the CIA agents were just trying to get valuable information out of terrorists that have no rights anyway, you may be right. However, we should all keep this in mind. If these charges are true, then those that committed these acts disregarded a direct order that ultimately came from the Commander in Chief himself. If that sort of a chain of command is NOT followed, then we have no functioning military and intelligence apparatus.
Now, if in fact this investigation is only going after rogue CIA agents that specifically dis obeyed orders then I believe that they should be prosecuted. There are two more things to consider. First, will the investigation center strictly on "rogue" agents that went above and beyond what their orders were? Second, presumably this information has long been out there and investigated by the Bush administration. So, either the Bush administration looked the other way, or the new administration is attempting to re write history. Either way, we have a serious problem on our hands.
The second story is only slightly less intriguing.
The Obama administration on Monday unveiled its latest takeover of a troubled industry -- this one the interrogation sector.
The White House announced that President Obama has approved the creation of a specialized interrogation unit that would focus on key terror suspects and report to the White House-based National Security Council.
The decision, which comes as the CIA faces fresh scrutiny about interrogations it conducted under the Bush administration, paves the way for the president to appoint a de facto interrogation czar -- to join the ranks of White House-based directors for health care reform, the auto industry overhaul, energy and other issues.
If the first story is explicable depending on how the investigation proceeds, the second is inexplicable. This makes no sense both as a matter of policy and politics. Taking interrogations from the CIA and moving them into the White House only enflames the ware between the White House and our intelligence apparatus. There is a even a rumor that Leon Panetta, the CIA chief, got into a heated confrontation with members of the White House and may have even threatened to quit. (A charge the White House denies)
The White House is denying a report that CIA Director Leon Panetta threatened to quit. ABCNews.com on Monday cited reports that Panetta, frustrated by several administration actions and discussions with regard to the CIA, got in a "profanity-laced screaming match" with a senior staff member last month and has also threatened to leave. Panetta reportedly was upset over potential plans to open an investigation into alleged CIA abuse of terror suspects. ABCNews.com also reported that White House staff are discussing a broader potential shake-up of national security officials.
So, it appears the White House has created a high stakes political food fight with its own intelligence apparatus. It's going to hurt this country's ability to gather intelligence but on top of it, it will hurt the president's standing. Only the very far left wants show trials. For all clear thinking people, the security of this country is a priority. Now, the White House is taking intelligence gathering and moving it from the experienced interrogators and moving it into the White House. Furthermore, the range of techniques that interrogators will be able to use will be diminished to the Army field manual. Does anyone really think that a high level terrorist will break from standard questioning?
I don't know why both of these things came out on the same day, though some have speculated that it was to change the debate. It certainly has. Though, if the president thinks that changing the debate from health care to prosecuting CIA officials will help him politically, he is in for a rude awakening.
The House Intelligence Committee will launch an investigation to determine whether the CIA broke the law by not informing Congress earlier about a secret plan to train teams to kill Al Qaeda leaders abroad.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., chairman of the committee, announced the investigation in a statement Friday, saying the inquiry "will focus on the core issue of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed."Reyes said the probe will be conducted in a "bipartisan manner."
"As I have said in the past, the committee supports the efforts of the CIA workforce in its difficult mission to keep America safe," he said in the statement. "I intend to make this investigation fair and thorough, and it is my goal that it will not become a distraction to the men and women of the CIA."
Let's keep in mind that the program at the center of this so called controversy was never operational. In fact, a former Bush official said that the president, who received daily intelligence briefings, was never briefed on this program.
The program was an idea by the CIA for targeted killings of top level Al Qaeda. At issue is the role of former Vice President Dick Cheney who may or may not have ordered the CIA to keep the program quiet.
It's important to point out that we've learned more about this program in the last three weeks than we knew about it in the previous nearly eight years. It's of course unclear why the program was kept from Congress, but if it was to prevent leaks, then the last three weeks have proven them right.
It's also important to point out that if the CIA had to brief Congress on every idea they came up with then all they would do is brief Congress. This program was never in a stage in which it needed to be briefed.
The Democrats have a national security problem. That's what happens when their leader in the legislature, Nancy Pelosi, acccuses the top spy agency of lying consistently to Congress with absolutely no proof. Sensing that her unsubstantiated charges would become a liability, the Democrats needed to find a trojan horse. They found it with this "program". Now, they are going to investigate a crime that doesn't exist to cover up for a baseless charge by their leader. Remember Nancy Pelosi claimed that the CIA essentially systematically lies to Congress but provided absolutely no evidence. This charge would be exactly that evidence.
It won't work. Nancy Pelosi's unsubstantiated charges were bad enough. Using the guise of an investigation to try and smear the former administration, and the spy agency by extension, in an attempt to change the subject is naked politcking. It won't work. The public is simply not that gullible.
The roots of this war probably started in 2002. That's when Nancy Pelosi was first briefed about waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Or at least, that's one side of the story. Ms. Pelosi herself says that she never actually knew about any specific person being waterboarded. She was only told it might happen.
All of this is only important because years later Pelosi became one of the Bush administration's biggest critics regarding most of the GWOT techniques they used. Of course, if she was briefed years earlier did nothing, and then years later she attacked the very same techniques publicly, well, that's just the most cynical kind of politics. Then, Speaker Pelosi held this now infamous press conference.
The press conference became famous not only for the startling accusation that Pelosi made toward the CIA (that they lied), but the totally uncomfortable manner with which she conducted herself.
Speaker Pelosi made this accusation at her weekly news conference. As such, the entire political world was riveted for her next news conference. We were all terribly disappointed when Speaker Pelosi stood by her earlier statement but then pronounced that she had nothing more to say.
At the time, I couldn't believe that it would stand that the Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency, could accuse the CIA of lying, stand by the statement, offer no proof or evidence, and then proclaim that she was through talking about the matter.
Yet, for several weeks, there wasn't much said. Sure, the Republicans used it to their full advantage. For instance, this appearance by Minority Leader Boehner summed up the manner in which the Republicans attacked the speaker.
Still, the story seemed to be receding from public view. Then, the CIA director met secretly with the House and Senate Intelligence Committee on June 24th. At that meeting, he apparently revealed that the CIA hid a program from the Congress. It just so happened that within two weeks, the House Intelligence Committee was going to debate an intelligence bill. It was widely believed Republicans would use this debate as an opportunity to attack Pelosi and againd demand that she provide proof or apologize.
So, last Thursday, a letter was leaked from seven Democratic House members of the intelligence committee. This letter was written to Leon Panetta, director of the CIA. In the letter, the Democrats demanded that Panetta publicly recsind statements that it is NOT policy for the CIA to mislead Congress because in this June 24th secret meeting he disclosed that the CIA had "concealed significant actions from Congress since 2001".
The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.
According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.
So, when the Democrats claimed that the CIA lied to them about a "significant action" that was really a program that was never even implemented. This program was always nothing more than in planning stages. Just think about this. If the CIA had to brief Congress about every idea it was trying out, they wouldn't do anything but brief Congress. As such, it makes perfect sense that they didn't brief Congress. There was nothing to brief yet. It wasn't as though they were about to take out UBL. They were merely thinking about implementing a program that might one day do so. The reality was that this program was never at a stage where Congress needed to be briefed.
Furthermore, for nearly eight years it was kept quiet by those in the Bush White House and successive CIA directors. Now, in the span of two weeks, all sorts of details have been leaked. Haven't the course of events proven that Cheney and the CIA should have kept it quiet for as long as possible?
The reality is that the Democrats have been playing politics with intelligence ever since Pelosi accused the CIA of lying. She was backed into a corner and so she made a shocking accusation. She knew she had nothing so she suddenly said she would say no more. Sensing that the Republicans would use this to their advantage, the Democrats leak totally misleading charges. In the process, they also allow for the leaking of far too much classified information. All of it is an attempt to protect the Speaker from the political fallout of making false charges against our intelligence .
The battle between Nancy Pelosi and the CIA just got amplified with this news.
CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress last month that senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001, the chairman and other members of the House Intelligence Committee said in letters revealed Wednesday.
Seven Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee wrote to Panetta in late June and asked him to "publicly correct" his May 15 statement that it is not the "policy or practice of the agency to mislead Congress," a copy of the letter obtained by FOX News shows.
FOX News has confirmed that the letter stems from testimony Panetta gave behind closed doors to the Intelligence Committee on June 24. The letter says Panetta told the committee that "top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week."
Now, it isn't merely Nancy Pelosi that has claimed that the CIA has lied to Congress. Now, seven DEMOCRATIC members of the Intelligence Committee have also made the same accusation. The letter was NOT written on Congressional stationary. Of course, no Republicans signed onto this letter. (even though presumably they would have been present at the hearing in question) The release of this letter comes day before an Intelligence committee hearing in which would expand the number of legislators briefed on sensitive operations. It was wildly expected that Republicans would make Pelosi's earlier charges in May that the CIA lied a part of the intelligence debate.
The time period that Democrats claim the CIA lied started in 2001 or during the Bush administration ONLY.
So, someone has some serious explaining to do. If Panetta knew that CIA officials were systematically lying to Congress, and claimed in public they were truthful then he needs to go. Furthermore, this would indicate he did nothing about his agency's systematic misleading of the Congress. If Democrats are mischaraterizing what the CIA is telling them then they need to pay a serious price politically in November 2010.
Obviously, no one knows for sure which side is telling the truth. Was Leon Panetta's public statements different than what he told Congressional ? Are the Democrats trying to smear our intelligence apparatus to score political points? Either way, someone has some explaining to do.
The long awaited press conference of Speaker Pelosi was held today. After attempting to talk about anything and everything but her accusation against the CIA for as long as possible the speaker finally opened the floor up for questions. To no one's surprise, the first question was about her charges and she responded as such.
"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this. I don't have any more to say on this I stand by my comments. And what we are doing is staying on our course and not being distracted from it."
I can only assume that the Speaker is a veteran and savvy politician because she is acting like a rookie flunky throughout and this latest dismissal and denial is another example. There is a very simple rule in politics, either you define yourself or your opponents define you. The president is very cognizant of this rule and on every single issue he is proactive in managing the message so that he defines the issue.
So, what has the speaker done here? If she won't say anymore, then that means the only ones speaking about the issue will be her opponents. Democrats would like to run away from this as much as possible. So, we can expect very few to address this themselves. As such, the issue will now be largely defined by Republicans.
If this were farm subsidies it wouldn't really matter. This is about an accusation by the third in line against our spies that they lied. This issue isn't going away and the continuing battle over GITMO only adds fuel.
So, the Speaker can continue to maintain silence and allow Republicans to accuse her of lying and demand an investigation. On the other hand, she can reverse herself in the next few weeks and months and end her silence.
If she does the first, it will only be Republicans talking about it. That means the story will be defined as accusations that the Speaker made against the CIA with absolutely no back up. It will be defined as a politician smearing our fearless spies for political purposes.
If, on the other hand, the Speaker sees that things are getting away and breaks her silence, then she will be chasing the story. The story will then become why she was silent for so long and why she broke her silence.
In other words, this is big mess that gets bigger daily and it isn't stopping. I will make a bold prediction. I give the Speaker until the end of they year and sometime between now and then she will be removed.
To understand just how toxic her situation is the readers need to do two things: 1) think fourth dimensionally (into the future) and 2) understand the modus operandi of the CIA in such matters. When the CIA has someone in their cross hairs, usually, they don't destroy them all at once. Instead, the CIA will destroy you by a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts approach.
I don't know if there is a smoking gun that the CIA has that will prove beyond any shadow of any doubt that Pelosi is not speaking truthfully. I do believe that the CIA can piece together enough evidence that taken together will mean only the lunatic ideologues will still believe Pelosi. It isn't the CIA's M.O. to release these all at once. Rather, their S.O.P. is to release little by little and cause a drip drip attack on their opponent. That's exactly what happened on Friday when it was leaked, presumably from the CIA, that in 2004 Pelosi objected to a covert operation in Pakistan and that operation was stopped. This leak of course challenges Pelosi's assertion that there was nothing she could do to stop EIT's.
Expect these sort of leaks from time to time. Expect each leak to further erode her credibility on the issue. Eventually, there will be enough leaks that only the ideologues will still believe her. Now, think fourth dimensionally. Pelosi has made an enemy of the CIA. So, the CIA is now going to be determined to undermine Pelosi at every opportunity. It also means that the CIA will be determined to undermine her at the most inopportune time for her. In other words, as an important bill is about to come for a vote, that will likely be a time that someone leaks. The CIA understands what Pelosi's domestic agenda is made up of, and now that they are enemies, they also understand that destroying her agenda is the best way to destroy her.
As such, the CIA is then ultimately now determined to make sure that they do everything they can so that universal health care, cap and trade, and education reform, doesn't pass. So, it's not hard to imagine bombshell leaks coming a week or so before an important vote. Republicans will likely use the leak to demand a delay. Furthermore, the CIA really understands that her position as Speaker is the ultimate prize. As such, you can bet that if there is a smoking gun, that will be the October surprise in November of 2010.
Meanwhile, Democrats are now in a constant state of defensiveness on this issue. Right now it is topic one. Of course, that will eventually subside but this issue isn't going away. Each and every Democrat, when asked, will have to choose between siding with the Speaker and the CIA. That's a horrible place politically to be. Every television or radio appearance and every interview carries with it the possibility that they will be asked whether they agree with the Speaker that the CIA mislead the Congress. As long as Pelosi is Speaker, that question is a possibility each and every interview and appearance. Furthermore, the Speaker, herself, has a weekly news conference. Each news conference one can expect at least one question related to this. Just how many more times will she change her story again between now and November 2010? How many more times will she look weak, confused, and with no credibility when answering a question related to this? Talk about a rock and a hard place. Meanwhile, Republicans will be in the exact same position only they will use each and every opportunity to demonize her, a la Newt on Friday, call for investigations, her resignation, and do anything to marginalize her power. Ultimately, they can do this freely because not only will it be to their political advantage but it will be right. Her actions are despicable and so righteous indignation is appropriate.
Finally, think about this. The worst case scenario for the Democrats is that Pelosi resigns the day before the November 2010 elections. The best case scenario is that she just resigned. So, that means the longer this goes the worse it gets for everyone. Right now, the debate is over whether or not her position is safe. The debate should be whether or not her continuing as Speaker hurts the party. Finally, if Pelosi stays on then the Republicans would commit political malpractice if they didn't nationalize her in 2010's Congressional election. In each House race there would need to be ads tying the Democrat to making Pelosi, the LIAR, Speaker again. Her popularity is currently 35% and that's before all of the leaks everyone expects have come out. Nancy Pelosi has now become the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans. Democrats are wise to embrace this reality and deal with it sooner rather than later.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
