John Brennanís Astonished Reaction To Bachmannís Question Is Priceless (VIDEO)
By T. Steelman
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. Itís not a place for someone of little brain. Seriously, peopleís lives could be at stake. Yet there she sits, with her cool little nameplate, with her very own microphone, askingÖ well, thatís 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)Ö thatís right: Benghazi. Give yourself 10 gold stars if you got that right (youíre on the honor system). Yes, Michele wanted to know if the White House had informed the State Department of the ďarmed drone strikesĒ it had ordered prior to the attack on the Libyan embassy.
John Brennan looked perplexed for a few seconds, then replied:
ďArmed drone strikes in Libya? I am unknowing of such and would defer to the White House to address your questionÖ the White House doesnít have a drone capability, responsibilityÖ I donít know what it is specifically youíre referring to.Ē
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 doesnít, itself, have drone strike capability and he really has no idea what the hell sheís talking about.
Unfazed, Michele changes direction to Iran, asking what the U.S. ďred lineĒ is regarding that countryís nuclear weapon development program, forgetting Ė or not knowing Ė that policy isnít Brennanís department. She then goes on to point out that ďwe werenít awareĒ of the several attacks since 1993 Ė never mind that some people were quite aware that something big was in the works before 9/11/01 Ė and sheís concerned that Iran may have decided to commit suicide by waving a nuclear weapon over their heads (metaphorically) and weíll 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 ďwater reactorĒ Iran supposedly has, querying ďwhatís the statusĒ of that legendary item. The CIA men look at each other, seemingly confused and reply that is another topic for a closed session.
Did Batsh*t Shelly forget exactly what those cameras all around the room were for? Or did she not care? Why is she on this committee? Iím serious here. If she doesnít 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? Iím 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.
Hereís the video of the exchange on C-SPAN: