Um. Okay. Apparently she mistook her CIA briefer, who introduced himself as such, for Vice President Dick Cheney. Which isn't as impossible as it sounds; I see Dick Cheney's face everywhere -- in rainbows, in curve of a baby's smile, on my girlfriend's back as we tenderly fornicate.

I assume she similarly has a bad case of Cheney obsession.

UPDATE: Pelosi's office has responded with a gentle statement supporting the work of the intelligence community, saying she was criticizing the Bush administration, not the bureaucrats at the CIA:

"We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward."

Seems to me a pretty clear attempt to walk back yesterday's fresh new story that she had been lied to. She doesn't want the documents coming out that prove her to be a liar, so she's attempting a "Let's just call it a draw" withdrawal of the claim.

But she said yesterday, clearly:

Q: Madame Speaker, just to be clear, you are accusing the CIA of lying to you in September 2002?

A: Yes, of misleading the Congress of the United States. Misleading the Congress of the United States.

And now, now that the CIA is calling her a liar and further damaging her dwindling authority, she decides she really meant it was the Bush Administration, and not the CIA at all.

Unbelievable.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

PS: Two heartbeats away from the Presidency is Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants.*

* If this seems childish, well, it is. I made this up to be as/even more childish than lefty bloggers' "BushHitler McHaliburton" stupidities.

But while I invented the monicker to mock them... now I kinda like it.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

By two years, he apparently meant a little more than one year. Of course he only waited that long because of 9/11.

Once again it's up to bloggers to fact check shit Democrats say that the legacy media reports without bothering to confirm.

It's almost as if the media holds each party to a different standard or something.

One reason Cheney doesn't have the same luxury of time that Gore did...Bush didn't lie about and attack Clinton every damn day. Nor did his administration wonder aloud about prosecuting Clinton era officials. Officials by way of example who may have taken a lot of political contributions from questionable sources. Sources such as monks and nuns who had taken vows of poverty.

(From the Slushop Collection)

Another Difference [ace]: As noted by a commenter or emailer -- Bush and Cheney weren't threatening to arrest and prosecute Clinton and Gore after staging show-trial "Truth Commissions," either.

See, Obama and Nan-Nan are doing that.

Apparently Gore is surprised to learn that a man being threatened with the possibility of criminal prosecution might think he has some leeway to make his case to the public.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:29 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

The White House seems to understand that San Fran Nan is an impediment to their grand plans of show trials and witch-hunts.

Thanks to Steve and DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Too cute. Well, except for one dog lying hurt in the street. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah wonders...

An afterthought. If my theory of whatÂ’s driving this is correct, why were the numbers so hugely pro-choice in 1995, with Clinton in his first term? One possibility is that it was a backlash to the GOP congressional wave the year before, with voters suddenly worried that a Republican Congress might try to scale abortion way back. If so, then the current numbers donÂ’t mean much at all since theyÂ’re basically just a reaction to whoeverÂ’s in power at the time.

It could also be that people have trouble calling themselves "pro-choice," even though they actually are "pro-choice," similar to how people who incline Republican or Conservative have a tougher time describing themselves as such.

It could be that a good chunk of the support for the pro-life position (and sometimes for the pro-choice position) is purely gestural and not real.

For example, someone (as many people seem to say) might say they're "pro-life" and then go on to support abortion in various circumstances... including first trimester or even second semester abortions, with no extenuating circumstances like rape or incest.

Most people, especially those who are truly pro-life, would not call that "pro-life" at all -- they'd call it "restricted pro-choice," or "pro-choice with some limitations" -- but it does seem that at least some people calling themselves "pro-life" aren't really all that pro-life at all, and could easily become "pro-choice" if their notion of "pro-life" is rejected in favor of a genuine pro-life position.

Still, even if at the margins this majority is gestural, it does represent increased sympathy for and support of more a more pro-life position.

Someone in the comments said they thought more people supported what they might call a "moderate pro-life" position, emphasis on the moderate. Sarah Palin, it was suggested, represents this notion (although it's not clear she actually is moderate pro-life, but she seems to project to many that while she's a social conservative, she's moderately so).

I still think the real number is something like 45 in favor of more genuine "pro-life" positions (but even that includes those who would make hard-case exceptions) and 55% in favor of genuine pro-choice positions (even if some of those would restrict abortion on demand). How people self-identify may bounce around and has a lot to do with the current "face" of either party, but I'm thinking those numbers are mostly static. They move a bit in reality, and move more in a gestural way, but not an awful lot.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

The difference between Bush's and Obama's deficits is the difference between driving at 63 mph and 174 mph.

One is over the limit. The other is reckless verging on suicidal. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

For reasons we can only guess at, this has changed from a +6 edge for the pro-choice position last year to a +9 edge for pro-life, a 15 point swing. Gallup's latest poll shows it 51-42.

I get annoyed at the various "moderates" who demand an abandonment of the pro-life platform, claiming the position is unpopular and loses votes.

It's not. The factual predicate here is simply wrong, and will continue being wrong no matter how many times they say it. Even when the pro-life position is less popular, it's only a loser in the 55-45 sort of range. Certainly there are pro-choice women who might vote for Republicans but for the pro-life platform, but there are also lots of people who only vote Republicans because of that platform. If there is proof the pro-life position loses more likely voters than it gains, I haven't seen it.

It is possible that the pro-life position is a draw in states we're already going to win anyway -- thus making that position superfluous in terms of gaining a victory -- and is a vote-loser in crucial swing states we could win but often don't. Again, that's possible, but I haven't seen the numbers crunched.

Until I do, I think the moderates' argument is mostly about making the party into what they personally favor, and not making it into a winning party necessarily.

I don't begrudge anyone arguing for a party more in line with their personal preferences, but I have to call shenanigans on the endless unsubstantiated claims that if the GOP would only abandon social conservatives, we'd start winning.

A personal preference should be stated as such, and not dishonestly sold as an objectively-superior electoral position.

Seriously... I don't begrudge anyone trying to change the party -- that's everyone's right. (Well, it's the right of everyone actually in the party, or at least inclining towards the party.)

But this drumbeat from, well, people like David Frum who offer the pretense that they're not merely offering policy prescriptions which will help earn their personal vote and personal support, but a governing majority's vote and support... it's just not honest. Or, rather: It's just not correct.

I know a lot of moderates believe this, honestly. I was just speaking to a gung-ho Republican who nevertheless was confident the GOP had to spurn the social conservatives, and we'd start winning elections. There just isn't any solid evidence for this. The pro-life position seems to alternate between being mildly unpopular and (barely) popular.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Bumped. People are tipping me about the Leon Panetta letter, which tells me they missed the fact that Drew covered it already. So I'm bumping it and adding red font. And some Popcorn, for musical accompaniment.

It's just a guess but I don't think Newt and Nancy will be doing any more "global warming" spots together anytime soon.

"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.

He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”

I'd love to see somebody ask Steny Hoyer about this.

Meanwhile, Pelosi has made her first good decision in days, she hasn't spoken publicly about "torture" today.

Update: It seems she did talk about "torture" today. At least right up until the point where she starts talking about creating jobs.

If this were Obama, I'd chalk it up to a TOTUS malfunction but with Pelosi, she's just cracking up. She was shaky during her appearance yesterday and this just seems to verge on batshit crazy. If she starts talking about strawberries, we'll know the end is near.

UPDATE x2: CIA Director and former senior House Democrat Leon Panetta calls bullshit on Pelosi's attempt to paint the CIA as a bunch of lying liars who lie.

Panetta, President Obama's pick to run the clandestine agency, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" according to CIA records.

"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication," Panetta said in the memo. "Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."

The music is going to stop pretty soon on this and it looks like Nancy is going to be the only one left without a chair.

Expect to hear a lot of congressional Democrats who previously wanted to set up an inquisition for the Bush administration to start talking about the need to look forward and not back.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:46 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 489 words, total size 4 kb.

600 United Steel Workers in Pennsylvania lose their jobs because of provisions in the Spendulus.

...In recent weeks, its largest client -- a steel pipemaker located one mile down the road -- notified Duferco Farrell that it would be canceling orders. Instead, the client is buying from companies with 100 percent U.S. production to meet the new stimulus regulations. Duferco has had to furlough 80 percent of its workforce.

"You need to tell me how inhibiting business between two companies located one mile apart is going to save American jobs," said Bob Miller, Duferco Farrell's executive vice president. "I've got 600 United Steel Workers out there who are going to lose their jobs because of this. And you tell me this is good for America?" ...

MISSION. ACCOMPLISHED.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:12 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

This wouldn't be the first time somebody sat down with the President and came away thinking something completely different about the meeting than him. Remember Poland and the missile shield? And all those Obama staffers who thought the President was saying one thing until he decides to "clarify" their "inartful" statements later? It happens because Obama talks in generalities, without any idea what he's committing himself or others to.

Now it's the healthcare industry.

Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending.

Mr. Obama invited health industry leaders to the White House on Monday to trumpet their cost-control commitments. But three days later, confusion swirled in Washington as the companiesÂ’ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.

After meeting with six major health care organizations, Mr. Obama hailed their cost-cutting promise as historic.

Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

Who is more believable? Obviously, Obama has a pattern of doing this to people. There's also this weaksauce reply from the White House:

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”

Silly Nancy-Ann. The One does not misspeak. Lesser mortals mis-hear his divine messages.

More: I focus on Obama's failure, but this is a nontrivial issue. He's trying to use the "historic" compromise to jumpstart healthcare nationalization. Now these folks have completely derailed his plan.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:41 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.