Monday, June 15, 2009
Cheney said he'd LIKE us attacked again?
Click HERE for the best explanation about the controversy regarding Leon Panetta, Chief of the CIA, saying Cheney WANTS America to be attacked again.....a news item which made it look like they had a quote from Cheney saying that (AS IF). Rich Galen explains the situation...but, of course, the media and Panetta did the bidding of their superiors/ideology,and any American watching the news I watched, anyone who doesn't know better and isn't reading Rich, sat there stunned thinking "Cheney said THAT?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Galen's theory to explain Leon Panetta's remarks seems to include the absurd assumption that leftists are actually capable of rational thought. The inclusion of Nancy Pelosi's witless turf battle is immaterial.
My explanation for Panetta's remarks:
Vice-President Cheney has warned that the Ogabe Administration's discontinuing of historically successful Bush administration counter-terrorism policies is recklessly dangerous.
Of course, when / if a terrorist attack occurs on Ogabe's watch, it would be ancillary to the event that Cheney's criticism of Ogabe would be vindicated, but that does not mean that Cheney wants a terrorist attack to occur.
It means Cheney thinks Ogabe is recklessly foolish, and reveals that Ogabe has no real intellectual defense for the policy changes he's made.
well said, beamish.
Of course that's what it means, but it's pretty clear the WH has quite some pull and that what Rich said is probably true.
And, of course, there was the way this news came over on TV last evening "and the head of the CIA said Cheney said he wants America to suffer another terror attack"........even I thought "they have a quote of THAT? WHAT? OH, NO" Of course they didn't and I should have known better, but even I still believe our media isn't QUITE this disingenuous or hate filled, or agenda-driven.
If we don't solve the media problem, we're sunk.
"Ogabe" !!
I hope and pray we don't have another attack, but I truly believe it's likely with Obama at the helm.
I don't borrow from Rush Limbaugh often (really, rarely at all) but the Ogabe moniker rolls off the tongue. It'll catch on the more and more like Zimbabwe we become.
Tangential to my first remark - when Democrats control the White House, the CIA becomes a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.
One wonders how many new Valerie Plames are busy using our blackbook intel funding to write checks to the DNC from CIA dummy front corporations by now.
Beamish, so it was Rush with OGABE? Mr. Z is very sad to constantly compare O with Mugabe.....more and more, with a state-owned media, too. in America. GO figure.
Edge...good to see you! you're right.. we have to pray..
Z,
Yeah. I read someone using "Ogabe" for "Obama" and just tittered uncontrollably at how fitting it was so I Googled it to find its origin, and discovered it was Rush Limbaugh that first knocked it out of the park.
I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, and still freshly remember that he helped Ogabe get elected with free pro-Hillary / anti-McCain rhetoric. Still, the nickname is a keeper.
Z,
For all those who ignored the politicization of the CIA with the appointment of Panetta, shame on you. What other motive could be the impetus for a blatantly inflammatory statement like this.
Panetta is a hack and always has been. Appointing him to the CIA was major mistake, or was it done for a reason? His muted response to Pelosi's outrageous performance in calling the CIA liars was evidence enough that Panetta will toe the party line.
Once again, those who have the audacity (is that word copyrighted?) to challenge the One, are subject to be destroyed by the One's hacks in the MSM.
We're in for a rough ride.
The way hussein obama is going, it won't matter what people want or wish for, you will get attacked, again.
Post a Comment