More evidence that they are lying to us.
Read from the American Thinker:
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky
"Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:
'In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board's website reveals this restriction:
"The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors."
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [....]
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, "At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,' and that's all I heard...I heard ‘presidential board,' and I think it was intel." In addition, the Times reported that "people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment" to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.'
An already implausible story has become much harder to believe."
I guess we are supposed to believe that the Obama Administration was not aware that a government worker could not be appointed to the Intelligence Advisory Board. What a bunch of incompetents! Don't worry, Diogenes, the American Pravda will ignore this little tidbit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ho Hum.
If Sestak chose not to run in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, and he didn't run for re-election to his House seat, he wouldn't be an employee of the federal government anymore, would he?
And how sure are we that an elected official like a Congressman meets the technical definition of a federal "employee"? Granted, a Congressman's salary is paid by the federal government, but he's not like the average civil servant.
As for the "American Pravda" ignoring this issue, think again, Ms. MooreLies. It was the New York Times that first raised the issue, and I heard mention of it on MSNBC, too. Your Rightwingnut Persecution Complex is more than a bit off-base... as is your whole argument on this issue.
But go ahead: wail away. Your screeching on this one is pretty funny! You have no problem with a President that invades a foreign country and starts an unnecessaray war which gets over 5000 American kids killed, but how DARE this black man from Illinois offer a Pennsylvanian a minor political patronage job!
Diogenes, you just keep telling yourself that Saddam was not a threat to America if that makes you feel better.
As to the Times on Sestak, yes, they briefly mentioned it, but it will be laid to rest very quickly.
My gripe in this entire matter isn't really about the offer made to Sestak. Though it's wrong, I realize that it happens in politics. However, the lies to cover it up are deeply disturbing. Sestak was an honorable man to begin with, though a radical on some issues, but now he is lying to cover for Obama.
yeah, Sestak is lying... because YOU know "The Truth"! So, please, enlighten us and the world as to what you "know", Ms. MooreLies. Who did it? Did President Obama call Joey Sestak into the Oval Office and hand him a contract to take over the Navy? Did Rahm Emanuel meet Sestak in a parking garage, a la Bob Woodward and Deep Throat? Was it Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick?
Laughable... you wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the butt. And if it did, you sure as hell would never print it, unless it somehow supported your rightwingnut ravings.
Saddam was a bad man, a very bad man. He posed virtually NO threat to America. There are any number of evil dictators that are light years beyond the threat posed by Saddam... but we didn't go after those folks, did we? No. In fact, in some instances, we help KEEP those evil personages in power, because it suits our foreign policy interests.
Saddam had no connection whatsoever to 9-11.
Saddam had no nuclear weapons. Worse yet, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush KNEW that Saddam had no WMDs, because they knew they were using intel from repudiated sources.
Saddam did have biological weapons which, yes, he used on his own people... about a DECADE before we decided it posed a threat!
No, Ms. MooreLies, you're wrong: getting thousands of American kids killed in a needless war of choice is a far sight worse than offering somebody a job.
none of those other dictators had direct links to the 9/11 attacks, herego... get saddam.
obama just sent how many troops to the middle east? and no ones yelling at him over it. maybe we should start blaming him for the oil spill like bush got blamed for the hurricane.
this whole sestak thing is retarded, whats the motive for....whatever the hell happened?
Post a Comment