Like Columbine, like the D.C. sniper case, the tragic killing spree Thursday at Ft. Hood defies explanation. There really are no answers.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded over 30 other soldiers and civilians in a crazed act of violence.

Unfortunately, the fact that Hasan was a Muslim will give cause to the American wingnut fringe to further discriminate against American Muslims.

I'm sure that Hasan's wicked act will lead some Republicans, who are already beating the drum to open an investigation into CAIR for allegedly secretly installing Muslim spy-interns in Congress, to embarass themselves and the nation by making wildly irresponsible comments about this terrible tragedy. But I suppose that's to be expected.

Hasan had been harassed because of his Muslim faith….but was not an extremist.

Hasan denounced the war on terror as a war on Islam.

Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire on Thursday.

Law enforcement officials said they are trying to confirm if Hasan wrote Internet postings that include his name about suicide bombings and other threats, equating suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the life of fellow soldiers. Link

There's still no confirmation that Hasan wrote the internet posting cited. I would also add that if Hasan actually said that suicide bombers find some equivalency with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the life of fellow soldiers…….that isn't all that radical.

Hasan is a 39 year old Army psychiatrist who counseled soldiers returning from American wars in the middle east region.

Hasan is unmarried, kept to himself, and was not outspoken.

Hasan wanted out of the Army and had hired a lawyer to assist him in that effort. Hasan was willing to repay the government for the cost of his medical training.

Hasan was about to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. He had made several personal farewells to the few people he regularly came in contact with.

His family members have openly denounced Hasan's despicable action.

Why did Hasan do what he did? I don't think there's any answer.

No question, Hasan did not want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Did he choose to slaughter other soldiers so he would be incarcerated, preventing him from being deployed? Did he expect to be killed in the violence he precipitated? Was he taking out his frustrations on being harassed as a Muslim… on fellow soldiers?

Mainstream media, to it's credit thus far, hasn't gone off the deep edge on this story. I'm positive that FOX will groundswell this tragedy into yet another wingnut meme, if they aren't doing so already……but I don't think that's appropriate for the situation and, for sure, it won't be helpful.

My personal opinion at this point is that this Army psychiatrist, outwardly calm and under control, inwardly was suffering from sever mental illness….the kind that is so unpredictable, and often results in bloodbaths of horrendous proportion.

Liberal ideas…truly liberal ideas…..are rarely ever considered by Congress. The reason is that liberal ideas, somehow, are never worthy enough to be called American….even though the strength and character of America was built primarily on liberal ideas.

Take, for example, the liberal idea on health care reform. The liberal idea on health care reform is single-payer government run health care. Single-payer is the most cost efficient and most fair way to deal with health care for all Americans. Because that is the case, it can never be considered. The liberal idea of single-payer was NEVER entertained by any health care reform congressional committees. When citizen attendees at congressional health reform committee meetings stood and requested single-payer representation…..they were arrested.

Whenever this very apparent dynamic is raised in earshot of Villagers, however, Villagers only smirk and say that Obama and Congress are doing the right thing by not caving in to those liberal loons. To the mainstream media "thinkers"….and this has been true forever….the worst thing a Democratic president can do is consider truly liberal ideas, take them seriously. If a Democratic president seriously considers truly liberal ideas….then that president is caving to the lefty loons. For the Village, the very worstest action a Democratic president can take …..is to, god forbid, champion truly liberal ideas.

Out of that dyamic of total nonsense comes the often-repeated, 'the new Democratic president must move away from his "leftist" base'…..'the new Dem president must move towards the center to be effective…yada, yada'….'the president's biggest danger is in caving to his radical left.'

Having said all of that…..just think about how the Villagers would have responded if Democratic congressional leaders spoke in front of a far-leftist group of protesters favoring single-payer. What if Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer encouraged a group of far-left liberals to gather in front of the Capital steps? What if those Democratic leaders each stepped to the microphone and cheered the far-left, single-payer crowd on…telling them to be of good cheer because the far-left liberal cause of single-payer will win the day?

What if single payer protesters held big banners depicting the Republican plan for health care as comparable to Dachau, Germany concentration camps?

What if the Democratic National Committee chairman, Tim Kaine, told all non-single-payer favoring Democratic representatives that if they voted against single-payer, the DNC will "come after them?" What if the DNC chairman went on to tell the single-payer protesters, "we want to partner as much as possible with you?"

What if "far-leftist", Dennis Kucinich, had communist-interest groups bus in 4000 protesters to rally in front of the Capital steps for single-payer….AND Democratic leaders, Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. spoke to the tiny crowd in support of their cause?

Wouldn't the Villagers, mainstream media, be telling us today that the Democratic Party had gone over the far-left edge….that the Democratic Party had now become totally unhinged….that the Democratic Party had now been taken over by dangerous radicals?

Instead of reporting on the extremely radical nature of the players and the crazed message of yesterday's astro-turf-organized, Michelle Bachmann-led, protest in front of the Capital steps…the "liberal" N.Y.Times treated the event with respect and dignity.

Here's the best the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, ever the narcissistic wanker, could come up with….

"But this protest was unusual because it was an official House GOP event, and because some of the remarks on the stage were as outrageous as those in the crowd."

Ya' think…Dana?

In a non-dysfuntional free nation, main national media would, still today, be reporting on the insanity, the crazed hysteria of the current GOP-TeaPartier alliance. In a dysfunctional free nation, like the U.S., such a mindnumbingly, ignorant, and potentially dangerous union of extremists and political leaders is only worthy of microscopic analysis and disdain if that union is made up of Democrats.

MSNBC.com headline: Bachmann shines among grassroots conservatives

ABCnews.com….

"But if you need evidence of where the political energy and excitement has gone, one year since Grant Park, a lunchtime midday rally in Washington isn't a bad place to start.

(Try to imagine the old Obama campaign army pulling off something roughly comparable in as short a time, with as little formal planning — or even with spreadsheets and call lists and marching orders, for that matter.)"

4000 folks bussed in at the expense of Americans For Prosperity is "where the political energy and excitement has gone."

CBSnews.com headline: Anger Fuels Anti-Health Care Rally

Instead of pointing out the demented and potentially dangerous alliance, "outed" yesterday in a noontime wingnut-fest with GOP congressional leaders and the TeaBaggers…..the new offical alliance was either treated as a ho-hum story or an alliance worthy of serious respect and consideration.

The Republican Party is now, officially, the Party of the Wingnut TeaBaggers. Media response…."Yawn."

As it is now, the more extreme portion of the GOP has decided to go after any candidate who smells of moderation or practices the evil art of compromise.

The Palin, FreedomWorks-Dick Armey, crazed conservative media morons, and, of course, the Tea Partiers, themselves, decided that some goddamn nut, Doug Hoffman, should push the more moderate GOP candidate out of a reliable GOP New York district House seat.

Now the seat will be held by a Democrat, Bill Owens. Owens beat Hoffman. It's been over 100 years since that district was held by someone other than a Republican.

That brilliant political strategy is now going to be deployed in California and possibly, Florida. Tea Partiers are going to try to knock the more moderate, Carly Fiorina (Hewlett-Packard), out of contention for next year's challenge to Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.

In Florida, the same Jim DeMint (R-SC) who is supporting the TeaParty-style candidate, Chuck DeVore, against Fiorina in California….is also supporting a far right candidate for senator in Florida, Marco Rubio…rather than supporting Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a moderate.

To the TeaPartiers out there….how did that purge strategy work for ya' up in New York's 23rd district? Not since the 1870's has a Democrat held the congressional seat of New York's 23rd district…..now a Democrat holds that seat.

Yet, Palin and DeMint and other extremist conservatives are steaming full speed ahead to implement the same TeaParty strategy across the country ahead of next November's midterm elections.

Next year we'll all be TeaPartied to death. Maybe that's the plan.

To what end? With all the manure slinging* about Tuesday's election, the news is that Democrats now have one more seat in the House. In our current health care reform frenzy, Democrats having one more vote in the House is only a good thing, you know, for Democrats.

What I'm saying is that TeaPartiers are wrecking any chances for the GOP to come back to majority-party status. While TeaPartiers are helping Palin and Dick Armey make a bunch of money, which was kinda', you know, the TeaParty plan from the beginning, conservatives are losing their voices of representation.

Republicans need to embrace the Charlie Crists and Carly Fiorinas out there, not reject them. Perceived ideological purity does not often work out pragmatically…..and it's not going to work this time for the TeaPartier brigade. Conservatives must face up to how America actually is, not what they think America should be…….and work out their politics accordingly.

Republicans don't need to move any further to the right…purging out all moderate thinkers……I mean, Jesus.

I don't like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Evan Byah (special dislike), and a few others wearing Democratic jerseys….but rejecting them all out of hand does not take into consideration the diversity in the population of our states. For example, Missouri is a more moderate-conservative voting state. Claire McCaskill, Democratic senator from Missouri, votes a bit too conservative for my liking…but she is trying to represent the people in her state.

Republicans, rather than purging along ridgid ideological lines, as the TeaParty-Palin bunch is doing and has promised to continue, should find BETTER candidates….not more wingnutty candidates.

This crash-and-burn of the GOP has been a long time in coming. It's overdue. I think it's fitting that after a very destructive 8 years of Republican governance at the federal level…..Republicans are now, apparently, self-destructing.

* Liz Sidoti from the AP has such a piece of garbage propaganda reprinted in the AB Journal today….it stands out like a sore thumb.

Headline: Elections unsettle moderate Democrats.

Under headline: Results don't bode well for Obama and party.

From the body of the piece of garbage: "Last year, hope and change tilted them toward Democrats. This year, anger and frustration tilted them to Republicans. They broke 2-1 for GOP victors Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia."

The AP's Sidoti makes no allowances here for the New York 23rd district win by Democrat, Bill Owens….which gave Democrats more power in the House. Did "anger and frustration" tilt New York's 23rd district voters to pick a Democrat? If not, why not.

But this is extra special…

"Victories in both states have given Republicans a much-needed morale boost. And the wins proved that Republicans can find success if their candidates gravitate toward the middle and are responsive to the voters' mood. That approach allowed the GOP to successfully woo independents."

See, that's the thing Liz….the Palin, DeMint, Armey TeaParty movement have already announced they are working to place radical right candidates up in primaries to purge the GOP of any dreaded moderates.

Morale boost that.

I must say something about the congessional race in New York's 23rd district. There's something twisted about what's happening in that race, expected now to be won by the outside-the-district, conservative party guy, Doug Hoffman. Steve Benen brings up some interesting points about the amount of attention that is being given to the New York contest

California's 10th and New York's 23rd are worth the same thing: a single vote in the U.S. House. Same kind of election, on the same day, with same value. One lacks a cast of wacky characters, but neither is necessarily more important than the other.

Democrat, John Garamendi, is expected to win California's 10th district House race.

I'm typing this at about 5 PM. I would wager that tonight's MSNBC election coverage will be all about the new Palin Tea Party Party comeback. That TeaParty Palin Party is being vicariously channeled through the far-right Hoffman win in a reliably Republican district in New York. Palin is Facebooking her way to fortune and fame….and you betcha' doin' what she can to help elect an extreme conservative, you know, "a real American", to the 23rd New York district.

Because Palin endorsed Hoffman, and Hoffman is going to win….enormous mountains will be made tonight out of very little molehills…..Tweety and his bunch will have Palin outpolling Obama before the night is out.

All that the Hoffman win says to me is that the Tea Partiers have taken over the Republican Party. You know….what-the-hell-ever. I can't see how Republicans gain back voters' confidence by moving further towards the extreme….but, hey, could be wrong.

One gets the sense that a Doug Hoffman victory in New York's 23rd will signal a national shift of great importance, but a Garamendi victory in California's 10th is a small blip on the radar. That doesn't make sense.

Hell no it doesn't…but one race has Palin, Dick Armey and the Freedom Works Tea Partiers….the other one doesn't.

Benen's words…"signal a national shift of great importance"….will surely be proven out by the Village media coverage tonight. The Hoffman win, as interpreted by the Villagers premier KneePadders this evening, will be sold as historic, game-changing, the end of the Democrats, and the best thing that could have ever, ever, ever, ever happened to the Republican Party. Hoffman's win will rank right up there with our divine Father Ronnie's singlehanded dismantling of the Berlin Wall, brick by brick.

I just hope that David The Fluffster Gregory and Chuck Todd will have information tonight from special anonymous sources about how Palin's new takeover of the Republican Party, apparent now in a Hoffman win, will be such a swell takeover, and how Republicans will now grow there party really, really big, and how more and more dissatisfied Americans will most likely embrace Sarah and the TeaPartiers totally incoherent message.

This is an interesting map put up over at Think Progress on Matt Yglesias' blog.

In commentary, Yglesias takes the position that "in general the majority of white men are not progressive."

Is that true, do you think? And if the majority of America's white men are not progressive, why would that be?

Why would only 41% of white male Americans have voted for President Obama? Obama won 53% of the total popular vote.

Why did less than 10% of white males in Alabama and Mississippi vote for America's first black president? 9 out of 10 white male Alabamans and Mississippians voted for McCain.

Open Left sets forward the idea that our history of national voting rights plays a role.

I'm not suggesting any answers here….because I don't know the answers…..I don't.

That's why I'm asking the questions.

Any answers?

It says something about a free nation when truth can only be told using comedy as a frame. Reminds me of how blacks were first introduced into television. While no major, mainstream, corporate-whore media members examined the 800 pound gorilla question in the room…."Is FOX a news organization?"…..Jon Stewart quickly went to work answering that, apparently, taboo question….

See how it's done? The, self-admitted, "non-news" players on FOX create the "stories" that the "real-news" FOX players, then, report on.

Hey, at least FOX keeps everything in house.

The Villagers simply had no time to examine whether one of their fellow KneePadded members was really only an opinion outlet and not a news organization….you know, like the White House suggested. Oh, no…..the "story" quickly became how stupid and wrongheaded Obama was for attacking FOX. Overnight, Obama became Nixon…because, I suppose, Villagers are "liberal."

Digby reflects…

"The Right Wing Noise Machine of the past 20 years has always laundered its dirt through foreign papers and Drudge, which would then filter into the mainstream press. But in the fast paced internet era they can't waste the time, so they simply launder it through Beck, to the Fox "news" people, then into the mainstream press. It's a much more efficient operation.

I think Obama was smart to pick the fight. It at least raises questions that will force the mainstream press to take a breath before they jump in. It won't stop them entirely, of course, but it might slow them down a little bit. This is probably the best we can hope for."

Yep.

UPDATE: Here's a Republican senator agreeing with Stewart and Digby…

"We don't need The Washington Post to cover things anymore," said staunch conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "Something can get on a conservative blog, then on Fox News, then it's everywhere."

UPDATE 2: Just for fun…

UPDATE 3:

Ultra-conservative, Murdoch-owned, Wall Street Journal….Friday on the Obama stimulus…..

Headline: STIMULUS FUELED MUCH of EXPANSION

Think Wall Street Journal writers were drinking kool-aid at their corporate Halloween bash?

John Boehner (R-OH), like the FOX "news" network, often practices the ancient mysterious art of "making sh*t up." That's what he did this morning in the above video clip.

"We first released our health-care plan in June, and over the last six months, we have introduced at least eight bills that, taken together, would implement this blueprint,"

So says Boehner. Did the GOP "release" their health care plan in June?

CNN reports…

The GOP released the guiding principles of its health-care agenda in June, but did not release a comprehensive legislative blueprint at that point. Republican congressional leaders have said the party is in the process of crafting a substitute.

The background here….

February 4, 2009…Boehner selects Roy Blunt (R-MO) to chair the Republicans' Health Care Task Force.

June 17, 2009…

Roll Call reported: "House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it."

Blunt, that day….

"I guarantee you we will provide you with a bill."

July 10, 2009….Congressman Blunt praised his Party's four page outline on the radio and declared, "Our plan is actually much more detailed than their plan has been… I think we're more prepared to debate our plan than they are."

Twelve days later, July 22, Blunt, amazingly, said this….

"Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they've got to whatever we're offering right now?"

You know, "why confuse the focus", by following through on what he and Boehner promised? No package of health reform alternatives were ever written or submitted by Republicans. Blunt, himself, admitted that Republicans had no legislative "language."

That brings us back to today's Boehner bullpucky….

Boehner's four points …

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Once again…no numbers, no fleshing out of much of anything…..just four Republican talking points "guiding principles", the same ones we've been hearing for years. What we haven't seen, however, is a genuine alternative plan….what CNN referred to as a "comprehensive legislative blueprint"…..proving yet again, that Boehner, in typical GOP fashion, simply "makes sh*t up."

Let's review what are, at best, four GOP talking points. It's all we have to work with from the party of no.

Number one…..it is widely known that the biggest health insurance companies operate in virtually all 50 states. So, "buying across state lines" accomplishes, what, exactly? Would it much matter if you purchased health insurance from Aetna in New York or Aetna in Iowa..do you think? In addition, taking Boehner's number one seriously, health insurers would relocate to the states that are the least restrictive on them, which would result in less consumer choice, not more.

Number two….Boehner sets forth no larger picture view of how "groups" would go about "joining together", to theoretically, create a bigger, and thus cheaper, insurance policy pool. As far as I know, nothing prevents groups from pooling together right now…..so while Boehner may think his number two is some brilliant breakthrough, it's pretty much a puffball of rhetoric.

Number three…"give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs." Your guess is as good as mine on what the hell that sentence is supposed to mean. No further explanation, just like it's been all year for Republicans, is forthcoming.

Number four….GOP boilerplate. Tort reform. Wherever there is legislation being talked about, Republicans are always going after those Democratic-voting-and-contributing "trial lawyers." By implication, Boehner's idea of tort reform in health care would bring with it fewer medical "tests", fewer medical "procedures." Give health insurance companies a break by reforming punitive damage awards, capping punitive damages for doctors who might, you know, paralyze your child, or worse….which Boehner says would…..mean fewer medical tests and procedures. And that's supposed to be for whose benefit, again?

Just like back in June….Republicans have nothing to offer. No serious plan to extend coverage to all Americans….no serious plan to lower costs….nothing serious at all.

Still the party of the Boehner.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Those are the Republican senators who voted against cloture on a bill extending unemployment benefits. Apparently, those Republicans do not care too much about the plight of those who are unemployed and whose unemployment insurance checks have run out. And why would they care? Most of those senators are wealthy. Why would they be in a hurry to help unemployed Americans?

Although last night the senate voted in favor of cloture on the unemployment extension bill by 87-13….there's still one more filibusterable step left before the extension is made law.

What are Republicans dragging their feet about here?

The Republican amendments include at least two provisions related to ACORN; one related to the E-Verify program; one to pay for the UI benefits with unspent stimulus money; and one providing tax relief.

Of course we know why ACORN is being used as an excuse to stall unemployment checks. Republicans are at war with blacks in America,….because blacks vote Democratic. Not personal, you understand, simply political. So, any bill to extend unemployment insurance, a necessary measure in our depressed economic environment, is a great opportunity, Republicans think, to hold hostage those unemployment checks to more FOX-style bashing of ACORN. Good luck with lowering that 5%-of-blacks-voting-GOP…..down to one percent.

E-Verify has to do with monitoring immigration through the crosschecking of citizenship on employment applications. Naturally, documenting immigration status has nothing to do with extending unemployment checks to, like, unemployed American workers…..but Republicans could care less about that. Republicans know that their political party takes a ridgid stand against undocumented workers….Republicans are tough border patrollers, don't ya' know. Nation protectors. "Amnesty" rejecters. Republicans rarely miss an opportunity to bash the "other" (see Jennings, Kevin) (see Sotomayor, Judge), and that's what they are doing with the unemployment insurance extension bill. If bashing "illegals" slows down the unemployed's checks, well….that's just the cost Americans must pay for the GOP's vigilance in it's fight against non-white skinned people. Undocumenteds threaten our very existence…or at least that's what FOX and Rush tell us….and they run the information-arm of the GOP.

The third "concern" of Republicans, which simply had to be addressed by stalling an extension of unemployment benefits, is paying for any extension with "unspent stimulus money." I got an extra special kick out of this one. Three Republicans in the Senate, Spector, Collins and Snowe voted for the stimulus package back in February. That's it….and Spector is now a Democrat. I just think that it requires big brass wingnut balls to stall unemployment extensions while those who voted against the stimulus tell the rest how that stimulus money should be spent. Big brass wingnut balls.

The last stall tactic is typical boilerplate Republican policy. "Tax relief." I mean, Jesus…..is there any piece of legislation….ever….that Republicans won't try to attach a tax cut to? Think about it. Republicans are holding up an extension of paltry unemployment checks in order to consider more tax cuts. Republican tax cuts during Bush cost the Treasury $1.5 trillion….enough money to pay for 10 years of national health care AND pay the unemployment insurance extensions needed now. BECAUSE cutting taxes radically for the wealthiest Americans didn't really create jobs, as the numbers demonstrate….it's particularly ironic that those who have lost their jobs and need those benefits are having those benefits held up, delayed, by yet another attempt to cut taxes.

Republicans can't govern….they've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt with the Bush/Cheney administration. Still today, GOP'ers repeat Father Reagan's wingnut advice…."government isn't the solution, government is the problem", and when in power, do everything to prove that government isn't the solution.

Then when only the government can provide the "solution", as with unemployment insurance extensions, Republicans do their damnest to stop that "solution" from being passed.

The Republicans in office are obstructionists. They are not a loyal opposition. They are the disloyal opposition. They don't care about typical Americans having health insurance. You've heard them….they just say no to health care reform. They don't care whether an unemployed American runs out of unemployment checks. They have stalled and drug their feet at every turn to slow down any extension of unemployment for America's unemployed.

These GOP'ers are beyond shaming. They are shame-resistant.

Yes, Congress will pass an unemployment insurance extension. But it won't be because the Republicans didn't try to stop it.

More than a dime's worth of difference in the parties when it comes to this issue, I'd say.

Remember back in May of this year when the tender and delicate feelings of some Republicans were bruised when Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this….

Pelosi said that she was explicitly told in her September 2002 briefing that waterboarding was not used. We've since learned that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times by then.

She accused the agency of "misleading the Congress of the United States."

“We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,” she said at the May press conference. “They [the CIA] misled us all the time.”

Ignoring, or forgetting, their own previous derogatory statements about the CIA, some Republican leaders bashed away at Pelosi for daring to speak the truth in public.

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)….

“Speaker Pelosi should apologize to the CIA for calling them liars to protect her own hide,” Bond told CNSNews.com in a written statement Tuesday. “It’s up to Speaker Pelosi to come clean and set the record straight.”

Ohio's own embarassment, John Boehner (R-OH)…..

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "ought to either present the evidence or apologize" in the wake of her comments that CIA officials misled her about the use of controversial interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects.

The Mighty Newton, currently in open opposition to wingnut darling Sarah Palin over an upstate New York congressional race, went further in his criticism of the House Speaker's CIA comments….

"She really disqualified herself to be the speaker," Gingrich said on "Good Morning America" today. "She has a unique responsibility for national security. … She made this allegation that smears everyone who's trying to defend her."
Leaving her in her place would be "very dangerous for the country," Gingrich added.

I know that Gingrich has occasions when he loses total control of his freak. That May outburst of freak over Pelosi's words about a lying CIA, I think, should be placed in Gingrich's top five "losing my freak" moments….you know, right up there with closing down the federal government in 1995.

Weren't those great wingnutty times back in May? Back in May it was steroid-enhanced faux-shock and sanctimony over Nancy Pelosi stating the obvious about the CIA.

There are now preliminary findings in a congressional investigation into the CIA's practice of giving misleading intelligence briefings to congressional members.

Intelligence subcommittee Chairwomen Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) are leading an ongoing investigation into what they described as a practice of incomplete and often misleading intelligence briefings, which arose in the wake of CIA Director Leon Panetta’s June 24 admission that intelligence officials failed to notify Congress about a top-secret program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders.

..[..]..

In June, CIA Director Leon Panetta alerted the House Intelligence Committee about a top-secret program to assassinate top al Qaeda operatives that previously had not been disclosed to Congress. Later reports indicated that former Vice President Dick Cheney had ordered the CIA not to notify Congress of the program.

Panetta’s revelation appeared to bolster Pelosi’s statement from May, and Schakowsky and Eshoo identified “Director Panetta’s June 24 notification” as one of the…. instances linked to a complete communication breakdown between the intelligence community and Congress.

What are the other "instances" where the CIA misled Congress?

…the September 2002 briefing on enhanced interrogation techniques that became the basis for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) claim that the CIA lied to her.

A 2008 CIA Inspector General’s report determined that the agency withheld information from Congress relating to the shooting down of a plane carrying missionaries over Peru in 2001.

…the CIA may have failed to properly notify Congress about the 2005 destruction of videotapes recording the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives by intelligence officials…

So, what do we have here? Nancy Pelosi said that the CIA misleads Congress. Above are four prime examples from preliminary investigation findings that show the CIA….umm….misleading Congress. Pelosi spoke the truth back in May.

What of the over the top and obviously phony reaction of Republicans back in May to the true words of Pelosi? Those silly GOP'ers were just trying to protect The Dick from having his Willy-Wonka Torture Factory fully exposed. Those GOP torture defenders, faced with the existential threat that their former leaders, George and The Dick, could be charged with war crimes, immediately tried to change the subject, blur the story lines, "create reality", by manufacturing a faux-outrage narrative directing the Village attention away from Cheney and Bush, focusing on House Speaker Pelosi instead.

The Villagers, predictably, followed the lead of the "reality creators", the conventional wisdom, GOP narrative-builders,….helping GOP freaks smear a truth-telling Speaker Pelosi. GOP'ers raise freaky hell over some off-the-wall topic….and Knee Pad wearing Villagers instantly drop to their knees to replicate the freakdom, vicariously taking on the faux-outrage visage of the GOP freaks themselves.

And then we learn, also predictably, it was all a staged hoax.

Just as it's obvious that FOX "news" is not a news outlet, so too, the CIA routinely misleads Congress.

Next Tuesday Ohio voters will decide the outcome of three statewide initiatives. The Reverend's recommendation is for Ohio voters to vote "no" on all three.

Issue 1 is, I think, a symbolic initiative, a feel-good intitiative which proposes to give Ohio servicepeople, especially those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, up to a $1000 bonus as a symbol of Ohio's appreciation for their service.

If the state of Ohio were not scambling just to figure out what spending to cut next…..or what gambling games to legalize in order to close a big state budget deficit…..then symbolic bonuses to servicepeople could be seriously considered.

But Issue 1 includes the floating of bonds. $200 million worth of bonds. Ohio doesn't have any extra money to pay military bonuses to Ohio military personnel…..so if Issue 1 passes, Ohio will be committed to paying bonuses with the proceeds from selling bonds AND returns on those bonds when they come due, with money Ohio does not have.

Issue 2 is tricky, I think. A yes vote on 2 will permanently establish a Livestock Care Standards Board by amending the Ohio Constitution. This Board will set standards for animal care and well being at Ohio's farms. Issue 2 is being sold as a vehicle to protect Ohio's "farms and families", to maintain "food safety", to encourage "locally grown and raised food."

Issue 2 is pre-emptive. It is an attempt to get out in front of a possible 2010 Ohio ballot initiative making it a criminal offense to confine animals in tiny restricted spaces. California passed something like that in 2008.

Issue 2 is meant to benefit agribusiness interests in Ohio. Nothing wrong with that, really. However, rewriting the Ohio Constitution in order to shield Ohio agribusiness from accountability in raising food animals…….except from a farmer-friendly State Board…..I'm thinking…..is not the way forward for the Buckeye State. Vote no.

Issue 3 is deja-vu all over again, Yogi. A yes vote will put a casino in four Ohio cities, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. That's it. Ohio has rejected statewide gambling efforts 4 times, yet, here we go again.

Now that Governor Strickland's effort to place slots at race tracks to help the state's budget deficit is in limbo, Issue 3 may just have a chance of passing. It shouldn't. Ohioans should vote no.

When it comes to casino gambling or slots, Ohio is late to the party. Other states are already positioned. Yes, Ohioans take a lot of their money over to adjacent state casinos right now. That is no excuse to pass some hastily-arranged new limited-casino plan, benefitting only a couple of big corporate gambling players.

If Ohio intends to introduce casino gambling into the state…..something I am for on the merits…..it has to be done with much more planning and creative thinking. Issue 3 does neither.

In addition, Issue 3 is, like Issue 1, a Constitutional Amendment. Once passed…..very difficult to change.

The Reverend encourages Ohio voters to just say no…..on Issues, 1, 2 and 3.