why people consider Pelosi "politically clever".

The way to deal with this horseshit is simply to boycott. Do not dignify the hearing by attending.

Or, if you are going to participate, do nothing but ask questions about the Bush 9/11 "intelligence failure" repeatedly pointing out the comparative body count and incompetence.

STOP. PLAYING.THEIR.GAME.

What Pelosi said is the issue, not what an "aide" said. What unnamed aides say are trial balloons for focus groups, not leadership.

the aide clarified the depth and breadth. At least, that's the way it was done when I was a Senate aide

the only proper response to this issue by Democrats is blistering derision and/or discussion of the August 6, 2001 PDB.

Anything else is playing their game and lending legitimacy to the GOP.

When you engage is discussion about whether the Kangaroo Court composition will be fair, you have LOST the issue.

comment:

legitimizing the GOP's claims.

None of my tactics do, regardless of boolean variables.

giving these terrorists any response at all is a loss.

I suspect the real goal is this:

"It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair."

This is to eliminate the nonsense where no Democrat is allowed to speak (not even the ranking member). I remember the House and Senate hearings that Hillary Clinton appeared at. There were FAR more Republican House members who used say 4 or their 5 minutes to ask a question framed to indict her or Obama followed by asking her to respond only "yes" or "no". Having Democrats there - alternating in teh questioning allows people to actually explain in more than monosyllables.

If you read the RW sites, it was very clear that they equate appearing before an oversight committee with appearing before a criminal court. The problem is that some like Issa - whether with Holder or Clinton seems to think that is the way that it is - even though it isn't. Here, the goal is to get the sound bite that just from the positioning makes it look like the person testifying is the "criminal".

Last edited Tue May 6, 2014, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I think it's great. Maybe Dems can grow a pair and use this to their advantage by comparing it to 911 and asking for another 911 Commission since the first one was a whitewashed cover up. Dems did it in 1975 with a new Warren Commission and investigation into multiple assassinations. I met Congressman Louis Stokes from Ohio in 1988 who sat on that previous committee. He told me to my face the panel agreed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, MLK and RFK and that the previous explanation were lies. BUT they couldn't pin it on a specific person. These days people don't realize that's what they concluded because of the phony media pushing lies. He also sat on the IranContra committee and told me when they went into closed doors executive session testimony all the CIA guys were lying through their teeth and he feared for this country under Bush Sr.