It was true that the "Green Jobs" czar's resignation, and the firestorm controversy surrounding it, was not reported by major news outlets, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and they were being blamed by FOX News channel for not doing so.
As far as Mr. Van Jones was concerned, FOX News spent some two full weeks maligning him and making pronouncements about statements and remarks he has made in the past; and then decrying the fact that President Obama was having a self-avowed Marxist and Communist Socialists with him in the White House.
However, the WH denied the allegation and said that Mr. Van Jones was hired to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, only because of his expertise in the area of environmental issues, and that made him a better and qualified candidate for the job.
His profile was checked through a vetting system that cleared him to accept the appointment. He was a skillful employee and that he was not brought in through the backdoor or stealthily ushered into the White House under sinister circumstances. Yet, FOX News contributors, "anchors" and commentators saw red; and with the help a few political henchmen from both parties, they practically forced him to resign.
So, what was the complaint about, that "major news outlets" did not report the story? It would be anybody's guess, but they might have had something better to do, as reporting on the Health Care Reform, and whether the "Public Option" proposition should be part of it.
To many Americans, it was a vital aspect of the health care proposals being nationally discussed presently; and so, ABC, NBC and CBS, with other popular newspapers were rightfully spending their time and energy on that discussion as a whole; rather than to join in the conspicuous "lynching" of a man, for the mere fact that he had said certain things in the past.
We all do; newspaper reporters and television personalities do say stupid things most of the time.
However, there has been so much hypocrisy on the part of those who have been critical in maligning Mr. Van Jones and causing his ouster; and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their conduct should be seen as undesirable during the past few weeks; and though, like them, many of us were not proud of Mr. Van Jones' utterances and actions, but we would not go to the extent of forcing him out of his job.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
THE VAN JONES RESIGNATION...
Not many Americans were proud of Mr. Van Jones' background; nevertheless, his ouster was a "lynch mob" conspiracy by a section of the Republican Party, who would go to any extent to revile an African American, just because he or she happened to be so. The Obama government has ignited so much animosity among those people, even the appointment of a low level official had to have a faulty appearance.
Senior members of the White House staff have maintained that, Mr. Jones was appointed to the WH Council on Environmental Quality solely on the basis of his savvy in matters affecting clean energy, and his desire to organize and create community oriented jobs to fight the blight and acute unemployment seen in so many poor areas in the country; hence, his unofficial title, "Green Jobs" czar.
His rhetorical statements in the past, some of which made on the spur of the moment, were not to be considered as part of his resume. His ideological views were similar to those held by so many Americans; his penning his name to the "9/11 truther movement petition" was done almost under duress. He has even said that it was a mistake on his part to have signed it; and he has apologized to that effect.
Yet, a slew of FOX News contributors and other disgruntled politicians would not allow the controversy surrounding his appointment to be put to rest. They were repugnantly gunning for him, until he finally gave in and tendered his resignation last Saturday morning. No body could resist such avalanche of criticism and survive. However, he was not fired; and so he was not disgraced, as some were anticipating. He decided to step down quietly, demonstrating his resilient nature to overcome any misfortune, such as the one he was presently facing.
His best commendations came from some of his colleagues in the WH; with Senior Advisor David Axelrod "saying he showed "commitment" to his cause by removing himself "as an issue."; and also with WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adding, "What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual", meaning that he, Mr. Van Jones, was not going to stand in President Obama's way. He quit on that score.
The African American community is taking note, Republicans.
Senior members of the White House staff have maintained that, Mr. Jones was appointed to the WH Council on Environmental Quality solely on the basis of his savvy in matters affecting clean energy, and his desire to organize and create community oriented jobs to fight the blight and acute unemployment seen in so many poor areas in the country; hence, his unofficial title, "Green Jobs" czar.
His rhetorical statements in the past, some of which made on the spur of the moment, were not to be considered as part of his resume. His ideological views were similar to those held by so many Americans; his penning his name to the "9/11 truther movement petition" was done almost under duress. He has even said that it was a mistake on his part to have signed it; and he has apologized to that effect.
Yet, a slew of FOX News contributors and other disgruntled politicians would not allow the controversy surrounding his appointment to be put to rest. They were repugnantly gunning for him, until he finally gave in and tendered his resignation last Saturday morning. No body could resist such avalanche of criticism and survive. However, he was not fired; and so he was not disgraced, as some were anticipating. He decided to step down quietly, demonstrating his resilient nature to overcome any misfortune, such as the one he was presently facing.
His best commendations came from some of his colleagues in the WH; with Senior Advisor David Axelrod "saying he showed "commitment" to his cause by removing himself "as an issue."; and also with WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adding, "What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual", meaning that he, Mr. Van Jones, was not going to stand in President Obama's way. He quit on that score.
The African American community is taking note, Republicans.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
MR. LEON PANETTA.
It looked like the CIA Director Leon Panetta was doing the right thing to resist the reopening of cases involving the agency's employees in the past, particularly during the period between 2001 through 2008. According to many reports, he has been urging Attorney General Eric Holder to accept the fact that the matter has already been dealt with by (the) Justice Department officials, who reviewed it (IG's Report) several years ago. They found that certain prosecutions were unnecessary, and although, only just one solitary case was justifiably deserving of prosecution.
Director Leon Panetta has every right and obligation to protect his department and to safeguard its interests. He has stressed that an ongoing criminal investigation would be a grave interruption into CIA operations everywhere; and it would be a serious distraction in the affairs of the agency; a luxury he could not afford. His agency was world wide, and deserved to have operatives who would not entertain any fears in performing their duties diligently, wherever they might find themselves. Their sacrifices must be recognized and rewarded instead.
What Mr. Eric Holder was actually doing was driving a wedge between the White House and the CIA, and therefore causing a split in the administration. His decision to appoint a special prosecutor should not have come at the wrong time, when the country was mulling over a Health Care reform, and did not realistically know where to go with it.
It (decision) was creating an amalgam of difficulties for Mr. Panetta, personally, and for the department he headed; as well as for the Justice Department itself. It was presumably the Attorney General's foray into politics. In other words, his motivation for a new probe was political, because that was what it looked like; and as such, many fingers were pointing to people at the "left" of the Democratic Party as being the joint source of the fracas that was unfolding between the two departments in Washington D.C.
There was no doubt, however, that the WH was endeavoring to sift through all the commotion, and to come up with the rightful solution to resolve the existing tension brought on by Mr. Holder's move to "address the problem of America's bad image abroad". After all, that was what the whole thing boiled down to, according to those who knew him.
The idea of the two departments being at loggerheads with each other was more than distressful, awfully unconventional and unproductive. In fact, it would seem more closely to being counterproductive, in the face of an enormous economic recovery, an embattled health care reform, and the recent slipping of the President's approval ratings, among other things.
More important issues that the country was grappling with at the present moment must rather be on the government's priority list; such as the huge trade deficit and an ever increasing National debt, both of which were forebodingly stirring future posterity straight in the eye.
The argument between the two factions here was not even an ideological one, where an attorney general was attempting to snatch a case, involving an individual or a group, from the "powerful jaws" of the CIA, for equitable reasons; it was just tomfoolery on the part of a Justice Department acting to bring rancor within the (Obama) administration; and it was high time for President Obama to act to steady the course of his government.
P.S. "Trade Deficit with China Continues to Expand: Why?", Article, 2009. Retrieved 09/05/09. Website: http://seekingalpha.com/article/155931-trade-deficit-with-china-continues-to-expand-why
P.P.S. The Blog had computer problems yesterday, Saturday.
Director Leon Panetta has every right and obligation to protect his department and to safeguard its interests. He has stressed that an ongoing criminal investigation would be a grave interruption into CIA operations everywhere; and it would be a serious distraction in the affairs of the agency; a luxury he could not afford. His agency was world wide, and deserved to have operatives who would not entertain any fears in performing their duties diligently, wherever they might find themselves. Their sacrifices must be recognized and rewarded instead.
What Mr. Eric Holder was actually doing was driving a wedge between the White House and the CIA, and therefore causing a split in the administration. His decision to appoint a special prosecutor should not have come at the wrong time, when the country was mulling over a Health Care reform, and did not realistically know where to go with it.
It (decision) was creating an amalgam of difficulties for Mr. Panetta, personally, and for the department he headed; as well as for the Justice Department itself. It was presumably the Attorney General's foray into politics. In other words, his motivation for a new probe was political, because that was what it looked like; and as such, many fingers were pointing to people at the "left" of the Democratic Party as being the joint source of the fracas that was unfolding between the two departments in Washington D.C.
There was no doubt, however, that the WH was endeavoring to sift through all the commotion, and to come up with the rightful solution to resolve the existing tension brought on by Mr. Holder's move to "address the problem of America's bad image abroad". After all, that was what the whole thing boiled down to, according to those who knew him.
The idea of the two departments being at loggerheads with each other was more than distressful, awfully unconventional and unproductive. In fact, it would seem more closely to being counterproductive, in the face of an enormous economic recovery, an embattled health care reform, and the recent slipping of the President's approval ratings, among other things.
More important issues that the country was grappling with at the present moment must rather be on the government's priority list; such as the huge trade deficit and an ever increasing National debt, both of which were forebodingly stirring future posterity straight in the eye.
The argument between the two factions here was not even an ideological one, where an attorney general was attempting to snatch a case, involving an individual or a group, from the "powerful jaws" of the CIA, for equitable reasons; it was just tomfoolery on the part of a Justice Department acting to bring rancor within the (Obama) administration; and it was high time for President Obama to act to steady the course of his government.
P.S. "Trade Deficit with China Continues to Expand: Why?", Article, 2009. Retrieved 09/05/09. Website: http://seekingalpha.com/article/155931-trade-deficit-with-china-continues-to-expand-why
P.P.S. The Blog had computer problems yesterday, Saturday.
Friday, September 4, 2009
MR. VAN JONES.
The adviser on "Green Jobs" Van Jones in the Obama administration has landed himself seemingly in a whole lot of trouble; and as one of the czars, as the President's appointees have come to be known, he is quite in hot water from the many statements he has made on past administrations and other political situations; and even after his apologetic announcement of dubbing Conservative Republicans as "A-holes", the controversy around him is still swirling to the detriment of him being in the Obama government.
His stance on the environment in the past, according to some members of the Obama White House staff, led to his appointment as a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and though, his position on environmental matters have not changed, his general attitude and common views have simmer down considerably.
It was on that basis that he was offered the appointment; and that the administration must be given credit for that appointment because the President knew his record as a strong advocate on environmental issues, and therefore he concurred that he (Jones) had something beneficial to offer, in the service of the country.
Yet, some in the media, and particularly on FOX News programs, are urging his ouster, due to his background, and for the provocative assessments and observations he has made during his lifetime. They were assuming that he would not last in his position before the week was over.
Well, should not that privilege be left to the White House? Such wild guesses were not helping in any way, neither were they honest, because those people have also had expressed negative views, one way or another, in so many instances, all their lives.
In fact, Mr. Van Jones has been a controversial figure for quite a long time, and some of his political leanings and assertions have been unsavory, to say the least; he has also made considerable contribution in his role as a community organizer to galvanize groups, such as the "Green for All", an organization looking to create jobs in poor areas and to bring economic and sustainable living for the people there.
He has also written widely on the subject of the environment, drawing attention to the plight of those who had no "voice" in the present day political and social settings. His book, "The Green Collar Economy" was a 2008 New York Times best-seller; and he has been praised by outstanding members of society, such as Actor Leonardo DiCaprio who accorded him a brilliant honor that anyone could have.
"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People" article.
He has "won plaudits" from former Vice-President Al Gore. In an interview with the New Yorker (publication), he said "I love Van Jones", according to the New Yorker.
Mr. Van Jones is rambunctious, flamboyant, big-mouthed socialist and communist, overzealous radical activist; you name it, and he will fit in the niche you care to put him in; but he is also a talented individual; a man enormously given to great accomplishments and achievements. Besides, he has mellowed in his despicable ways that always created problems for him. He has lately been very apologetic to those that he thinks he has offended; and he has now joined the political "mainstream", so to speak.
He is pragmatic and sincere; one of the people that President Obama wants to surround himself with, and not just "plain radicals and activists", as FOX News contributors are saying. He (Jones) must be allowed to keep working for the administration, at least for the time being; and only at the President's behest, of course.
His stance on the environment in the past, according to some members of the Obama White House staff, led to his appointment as a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and though, his position on environmental matters have not changed, his general attitude and common views have simmer down considerably.
It was on that basis that he was offered the appointment; and that the administration must be given credit for that appointment because the President knew his record as a strong advocate on environmental issues, and therefore he concurred that he (Jones) had something beneficial to offer, in the service of the country.
Yet, some in the media, and particularly on FOX News programs, are urging his ouster, due to his background, and for the provocative assessments and observations he has made during his lifetime. They were assuming that he would not last in his position before the week was over.
Well, should not that privilege be left to the White House? Such wild guesses were not helping in any way, neither were they honest, because those people have also had expressed negative views, one way or another, in so many instances, all their lives.
In fact, Mr. Van Jones has been a controversial figure for quite a long time, and some of his political leanings and assertions have been unsavory, to say the least; he has also made considerable contribution in his role as a community organizer to galvanize groups, such as the "Green for All", an organization looking to create jobs in poor areas and to bring economic and sustainable living for the people there.
He has also written widely on the subject of the environment, drawing attention to the plight of those who had no "voice" in the present day political and social settings. His book, "The Green Collar Economy" was a 2008 New York Times best-seller; and he has been praised by outstanding members of society, such as Actor Leonardo DiCaprio who accorded him a brilliant honor that anyone could have.
"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People" article.
He has "won plaudits" from former Vice-President Al Gore. In an interview with the New Yorker (publication), he said "I love Van Jones", according to the New Yorker.
Mr. Van Jones is rambunctious, flamboyant, big-mouthed socialist and communist, overzealous radical activist; you name it, and he will fit in the niche you care to put him in; but he is also a talented individual; a man enormously given to great accomplishments and achievements. Besides, he has mellowed in his despicable ways that always created problems for him. He has lately been very apologetic to those that he thinks he has offended; and he has now joined the political "mainstream", so to speak.
He is pragmatic and sincere; one of the people that President Obama wants to surround himself with, and not just "plain radicals and activists", as FOX News contributors are saying. He (Jones) must be allowed to keep working for the administration, at least for the time being; and only at the President's behest, of course.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
THE C.I.A. INVESTIGATION.
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to move forward with the investigation of CIA interrogators could lead to more and more probes into the activities of the agency during the Bush administration. Despite the fact that the idea was a political one, as many people have remarked, Federal prosecutor Mr. John Durham would proceed to preoccupy himself with the arduous task of carrying out his assignment.
The Republican members in Congress have objected to any type of investigation of CIA operatives from the past, as that would affect the morale of the people presently working in the agency. "They've kept us safe for eight years, " said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "And now to have an attorney general of the United States opening up a criminal investigation against them -- it's disgraceful and I think it's going to have a demoralizing effect on the CIA."
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was the first to raise a red flag against such a move on the part of the Obama government, and said that it would set a bad precedent for future administrations.
In his appearance on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, he made it clear that the investigation was uncalled for; it would damage the image of the CIA; and it would not be in the interest of the nation's security. He was answered by Gen. Jim Jones, the present National Security Adviser to the Obama administration, who presented very few facts to counter-act Mr. Cheney's statements.
Yet, senior members of the Democratic Party were urging what could only be described as a political witch hunt to continue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted it, as she herself has even accused the agency in May (2009) "of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding". House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers also maintained that the investigation, as it stood right now, did "not go far enough".
The CIA has been under attack before in the 1970s; however those were for its delving in domestic affairs, which did not fit its role of dealing with external and international matters. In fact, some of its members went to prison as a result.
Nevertheless, the 9/11 attacks released such public outcry and anger that called for aggressive intelligence maneuvers in handling terrorists, and especially, high-valued ones, when they were detained; indicating that the circumstances at that time were totally different. Indeed, they, interrogators, did what they were supposed to do to keep the country safe.
Breaking of laws should be taken seriously, as the Attorney General should insist; but on the pretext that his decision would alter the image of America one single bit, was not at all convincing to warrant an investigation of the kind that he was putting forward; and if President Obama allowed it (investigation) to go on, where would it end?
The Republican members in Congress have objected to any type of investigation of CIA operatives from the past, as that would affect the morale of the people presently working in the agency. "They've kept us safe for eight years, " said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "And now to have an attorney general of the United States opening up a criminal investigation against them -- it's disgraceful and I think it's going to have a demoralizing effect on the CIA."
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was the first to raise a red flag against such a move on the part of the Obama government, and said that it would set a bad precedent for future administrations.
In his appearance on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, he made it clear that the investigation was uncalled for; it would damage the image of the CIA; and it would not be in the interest of the nation's security. He was answered by Gen. Jim Jones, the present National Security Adviser to the Obama administration, who presented very few facts to counter-act Mr. Cheney's statements.
Yet, senior members of the Democratic Party were urging what could only be described as a political witch hunt to continue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted it, as she herself has even accused the agency in May (2009) "of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding". House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers also maintained that the investigation, as it stood right now, did "not go far enough".
The CIA has been under attack before in the 1970s; however those were for its delving in domestic affairs, which did not fit its role of dealing with external and international matters. In fact, some of its members went to prison as a result.
Nevertheless, the 9/11 attacks released such public outcry and anger that called for aggressive intelligence maneuvers in handling terrorists, and especially, high-valued ones, when they were detained; indicating that the circumstances at that time were totally different. Indeed, they, interrogators, did what they were supposed to do to keep the country safe.
Breaking of laws should be taken seriously, as the Attorney General should insist; but on the pretext that his decision would alter the image of America one single bit, was not at all convincing to warrant an investigation of the kind that he was putting forward; and if President Obama allowed it (investigation) to go on, where would it end?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
WHITNEY HOUSTON.
Whitney Houston's return to show business is good news for many Americans who have been her devoted fans for a whole decade, if not more. Her concert airs on "Good Morning America", an ABC morning program; and it will bring back loads of memories to people, young and old, after her absence for seven long years.
Her comeback is a personal triumph for a young lady, who has been through so much adversities and pitfalls in life; first, her divorce, two years ago; and then a slew of strange stories involving drug use and/or abuse; and added to that are all kinds of unsavory family problems not fitting for a talented singer that she is.
However, all in all, she has re-emerged, "with full diva qualifications"; her new album, comprising of songs as "I Look to You", "My Love is Your Love" and "I am Every Woman".
Her appearance in Central Park's Rumsey Playfield, New York City, will gladden many hearts of million of music lovers and ardent fans around the world, who have been missing her for all these years. She is a great, delightful, charming singer and performer, and she will remain so for many more decades to come.
We wish her well.
Her comeback is a personal triumph for a young lady, who has been through so much adversities and pitfalls in life; first, her divorce, two years ago; and then a slew of strange stories involving drug use and/or abuse; and added to that are all kinds of unsavory family problems not fitting for a talented singer that she is.
However, all in all, she has re-emerged, "with full diva qualifications"; her new album, comprising of songs as "I Look to You", "My Love is Your Love" and "I am Every Woman".
Her appearance in Central Park's Rumsey Playfield, New York City, will gladden many hearts of million of music lovers and ardent fans around the world, who have been missing her for all these years. She is a great, delightful, charming singer and performer, and she will remain so for many more decades to come.
We wish her well.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
GENERAL JIM JONES.
General Jim Jones (Ret), the National Security Adviser to the Obama government disclosed in an exclusive interview with ABC News that President Obama was having "greater success taking terrorists out of commission than Bush did"; although he did not provide any empirical or conclusive proof of his statement.
He was responding to former Vice-President Dick Cheney's remarks last Sunday morning, when he appeared in a segment of FOX News Sunday program with Chris Wallace. Mr. Cheney had commented among other things that, he had "serious doubts" about the extent to which President Obama "understands and is prepared to do what needs to done to defend the nation."
His assertions were based on Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder's decision to conduct "preliminary" investigations on some CIA personnel who had broken the law or had gone overboard in their interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. He had said that some of those interrogation techniques had forced suspects as September 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give information that, in his view, helped save American lives, after that attack.
Gen. Jones, on the other hand, had argued that he "couldn't provide any definitive answer as to whether, as Cheney argues, any detainees who were interrogated using methods President Obama has banned -- ones that qualify as torture under international law -- provided information they would not have offered using other methods". What?
He continued by saying that, "I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would argue because somebody was subjected to enhanced techniques that there was a revelation that we wouldn't have had"......"but it is very hard to prove the negative on this."; which literally meant that the former VP's assertions were pure conjecture.
The general said that the new approach by the administration on the issue of terrorism was working better, with the co-operation of international law enforcement agencies and America's allies; and that Mohammed's confessions, after being water boarded dozens of times, were lies, "He himself admitted that in order to get them to stop doing it, he lied.", the general added. Which also meant that the CIA enhanced techniques never worked. Yet, and almost at the same time, he admitted that he was not sure, whether they did or not, as he had said before.
In other words, he would rather believe Mohammed, a terrorist who had engineered the 9/11 attack, a ferocious and unprovoked one (attack), on the U.S. mainland than Mr. Cheney, who had all the facts at his disposal, at the time when the country was under (fire) that attack.
However, we all knew what Mr. Cheney's main complaint was, that investigating CIA operatives from the past would damage the morale of the people who presently worked in the agency; and that the Obama administration must stop politicizing an issue that had already been dealt with by career and independent lawyers in the same Department of Justice long ago, and it was being "resurrected" by Mr. Holder; thus by so doing, finding a flimsy way to bring it back again.
As for the general, he had to make those comments to Jake Tapper of ABC News, just to counter-balance what was the obvious, that the administration had done nothing to seriously affect the plans of Al Qaeda and those who meant to do harm to America.
Nevertheless, a great number of people knew that the country was still basking in the peaceful atmosphere created by former President W. Bush and his mate, Mr. Dick Cheney, after the awful September 9/11 attack. Any "nonchalant" attitude on the part of the present government, with respect to the nation's security, therefore, would not suffice.
He was responding to former Vice-President Dick Cheney's remarks last Sunday morning, when he appeared in a segment of FOX News Sunday program with Chris Wallace. Mr. Cheney had commented among other things that, he had "serious doubts" about the extent to which President Obama "understands and is prepared to do what needs to done to defend the nation."
His assertions were based on Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder's decision to conduct "preliminary" investigations on some CIA personnel who had broken the law or had gone overboard in their interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. He had said that some of those interrogation techniques had forced suspects as September 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give information that, in his view, helped save American lives, after that attack.
Gen. Jones, on the other hand, had argued that he "couldn't provide any definitive answer as to whether, as Cheney argues, any detainees who were interrogated using methods President Obama has banned -- ones that qualify as torture under international law -- provided information they would not have offered using other methods". What?
He continued by saying that, "I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would argue because somebody was subjected to enhanced techniques that there was a revelation that we wouldn't have had"......"but it is very hard to prove the negative on this."; which literally meant that the former VP's assertions were pure conjecture.
The general said that the new approach by the administration on the issue of terrorism was working better, with the co-operation of international law enforcement agencies and America's allies; and that Mohammed's confessions, after being water boarded dozens of times, were lies, "He himself admitted that in order to get them to stop doing it, he lied.", the general added. Which also meant that the CIA enhanced techniques never worked. Yet, and almost at the same time, he admitted that he was not sure, whether they did or not, as he had said before.
In other words, he would rather believe Mohammed, a terrorist who had engineered the 9/11 attack, a ferocious and unprovoked one (attack), on the U.S. mainland than Mr. Cheney, who had all the facts at his disposal, at the time when the country was under (fire) that attack.
However, we all knew what Mr. Cheney's main complaint was, that investigating CIA operatives from the past would damage the morale of the people who presently worked in the agency; and that the Obama administration must stop politicizing an issue that had already been dealt with by career and independent lawyers in the same Department of Justice long ago, and it was being "resurrected" by Mr. Holder; thus by so doing, finding a flimsy way to bring it back again.
As for the general, he had to make those comments to Jake Tapper of ABC News, just to counter-balance what was the obvious, that the administration had done nothing to seriously affect the plans of Al Qaeda and those who meant to do harm to America.
Nevertheless, a great number of people knew that the country was still basking in the peaceful atmosphere created by former President W. Bush and his mate, Mr. Dick Cheney, after the awful September 9/11 attack. Any "nonchalant" attitude on the part of the present government, with respect to the nation's security, therefore, would not suffice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)