Not Yet Hostile.
The thrill is gone for the captives of the White House Press Correspondents posse, and the suddenly dour-faced and puckishly obtuse Robert Gibbs begins to show age, temper, the limits of his imagination as of last Thursday 4 February -- the last day the White House worked in DC before Snowmageddon. A year ago, Gibbs was suggesting a senior Republican lawmaker, such as Kit Bond of Missouri, owes an apology to the White House over some indecipherable interpretation of who leaked what and when in re the Christmas Bomber brouhaha. Gibbs is dull even in his pique. This news cycle, the White House called Bond "pathetic." The media are not sympathetic to Gibbs. Not yet hostile to the White House. But the giggle has left the building. Settling in for the second year of the Obama administration stall. No Valentine's Day gifts to be exchanged. Meanwhile, Senator Bond's office, recognizing a huge opportunity, fired back on a snowbound day:
"What's pathetic, and I believe dangerous, is a White House more interested in name calling than in a debate on our nation's terror-fighting policies that must be changed to keep Americans safe from attack."
Peter King
Spoke Homeland Security ranking member Peter King (R-3NY) in re the Christmas Bomber case. King writes an op-ed for USA Today in which he asserts that John Brennan of the White House misled lawmakers in the original briefing on the detention of Abdulmutallab. King tells me that Brennan is a thinks-he's-tough guy who treats everyone outside of his office with contempt and silence. King calls Brennan "a control freak."
"This is another case of John Brennan not knowing what he is talking about," King tells National Review Online. "Brennan is trying to be cute by saying that on Christmas Day he briefed Republicans and Democrats. Leave aside the fact that he didn't brief me, but he didn't tell anybody anything that day other than the bare facts that were pretty much known to the public. He said that [Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] was in FBI custody. Now he's claiming that that means he told people that [Abdulmutallab] was receiving Miranda rights and no one objected. If that's what Brennan considers being honest and forthright, then we know that John Brennan is not being honest and forthright."
Brennan and Geithner have something in common. They both talk too fast, words spraying out hiding each other. What does the avalanche of syllables hide? Is it a tool to prevent interruption, to override question or doubt?
They have become the spin sprinklers of these trying times.
I dislike Gibbs so much (basically because of his "unearned" arrogance, if you know what I mean, and because of his mousy visage) that I literally can't stomach watching his pressers. I go to click the "Play" button and then at the last second I stop - say to myself, "Ah, it's probably not that important, I can always read somebody's reaction to it and figure out if I missed anything." I can't remember anyone who's irritated me more ... not even Billary. With those two, it was more like watching the villain in a Fantastic Four comic book. With Gibbs, it's just bad. Just don't like the man - would really like to see him go. In fact, I think Ahmadinejad and Gibbs are the two people in the news these days who I least like to watch, and it's really close as to who's worse.
Olbermann is of course in a league by himself but I like to watch his rants just because you rarely get the opportunity to hear 200 proof idiocy delivered in such large doses. You've heard of a "Hundred Year Flood" or a "Hundred Year Earthquake?" Olbermann's a "Hundred Year Idiot."
I think I'm finally over (hating) Bill Clinton! Unbelievably, when I read about his having stents put in, I didn't think my usual dark thoughts about how I hoped he would die and subsequently rot in Hell. In fact, I felt a bit sad to think he might die so young. "Lou!" I said to myself. "Get a grip! That's Bill Clinton! The anti-Christ of your younger years." But no, it would be sad if he bought it. I can only explain this odd behaviour on my part by presuming that, similar to the way a man can only truly love one woman at once, a man can only have one true arch-enemy, and Harry Reid now occupies that place in my psyche.
When Bush outlined his anti-terror strategy shortly after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he stated that some of it will be obvious to the general public while the rest of it will be happening below the radar. The success of his strategy would become apparent by the fact that no terrorist attacks occurred on American soil during his tenure.
There has so far been no indication that the Obama administration has any depth to its anti-terror policy. Indeed, we have suffered attacks on American soil since he’s been in office. The response each time has been blame shifting and C. Y. A.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/