Somebody please tell me why the hell Michele Bachmann is on the House Intelligence Committee? I mean, besides creating a textbook oxymoron. This committee deals with important state secrets, with the CIA and other government spooks. It’s not a place for someone of little brain. Seriously, people’s lives could be at stake. Yet there she sits, with her cool little nameplate, with her very own microphone, asking… well, that’s the problem.
In a hearing this past Thursday with new CIA director John Brennan and some of his top men, Bachmann let her freak flag fly when she had a turn at the mic. Her first question (wait for iiiit)… that’s right: Benghazi. Give yourself 10 gold stars if you got that right (you’re on the honor system). Yes, Michele wanted to know if the White House had informed the State Department of the “armed drone strikes” it had ordered prior to the attack on the Libyan embassy.
John Brennan looked perplexed for a few seconds, then replied:
“Armed drone strikes in Libya? I am unknowing of such and would defer to the White House to address your question… the White House doesn’t have a drone capability, responsibility… I don’t know what it is specifically you’re referring to.”
Bachmann tries a few times to find out exactly how the White House managed to order non-existent drone strikes. I guess she was attempting to insinuate that the President sits in the Oval Office pushing buttons, launching drones and knocking back a few brewskis. Eventually she moves along after Brennan tells her that the White House doesn’t, itself, have drone strike capability and he really has no idea what the hell she’s talking about.
Unfazed, Michele changes direction to Iran, asking what the U.S. “red line” is regarding that country’s nuclear weapon development program, forgetting – or not knowing – that policy isn’t Brennan’s department. She then goes on to point out that “we weren’t aware” of the several attacks since 1993 – never mind that some people were quite aware that something big was in the works before 9/11/01 – and she’s concerned that Iran may have decided to commit suicide by waving a nuclear weapon over their heads (metaphorically) and we’ll be unaware of that. Maybe realizing that this was insulting to the intelligence community, she compliments it a couple of times, as if that makes up for implying that they may not be doing their jobs.
This, of course, is something that could not be discussed in an open session, as Brennan notes, and Bachmann seems to take the hint. She then goes on to ask about a “water reactor” Iran supposedly has, querying “what’s the status” of that legendary item. The CIA men look at each other, seemingly confused and reply that is another topic for a closed session.
Did Batshit Shelly forget exactly what those cameras all around the room were for? Or did she not care? Why is she on this committee? I’m serious here. If she doesn’t understand the delineation of what can be spoken about in an open session as opposed to a closed one how can she be trusted with sensitive information? I’m pretty sure John Brennan has his doubts about that after her performance at this hearing.
We need to get Bachmann off the Intel Committee but I fear the only way that can be accomplished is to unseat her next year. I hope that can happen before her flapping gums get us into trouble.
Here’s the video of the exchange on C-SPAN:
T. Steelman is a life-long Liberal. She has been writing online about politics since 2007. She lives in Western Washington with her husband, daughter, 2 cats and a small herd of alpacas. How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is, after all, so poorly lit…