Well, I was all set to go after Code Pink and its minions, the people who theoretically run Congress, but my colleague Jim Addison beat me to it. (I'll deal with YOU later, Addison...) He did a pretty good job of summing it up, but I want to add a few thoughts of my own.
First up, as Jim and Dafydd ab Hugh have noted, Code Pink's repeated disruptions of congressional hearings and proceedings can not have continued as long as they have without at least the tacit support of congressional leadership. When a Code Pink dipshit can get within a couple of feet of the Secretary of State in full Pink regalia and mock blood on her hands inside a Congressional hearing chamber, Occam's Razor goes out the window. I'm a big believer in "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," but not even Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Capitol Police can be that stupid, that inept, that incompetent.
My first idea was for the White House to send the Secret Service along to provide security for any administration officials going up on Capitol Hill, but there's a problem. Congress has near-absolute sovereignty (remember the dustup when the FBI raided the office of Congressman William Jefferson Clinton) (damn, I thought I had that key fixed...), and the Capitol Police are the only authorized law-enforcement body on the grounds of Congress. The Secret Service would have to obtain special permission to perform its duties there.
Jim Addison's solution, though, seems better. Simply inform Congress that, in light of all the repeated breaches of security -- the most recent one placing the Secretary Of State, the fourth person in the line of presidential succession (behind the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate), in physical danger -- from now on, all high-ranking officials will only testify before Congress in an Executive Branch-protected venue or by video link.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Attention Whores
Comments (16)
She was exasperated that sh... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kim | October 25, 2007 11:37 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
She was exasperated that she was rushed. Boy, was she cool, though.
==========================================
1. Posted by kim | October 25, 2007 11:37 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:37
2. Posted by kim | October 25, 2007 11:38 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
By the way, that woman had the face of a suicide bomber. Too little ego in her cosmos.
========================================
2. Posted by kim | October 25, 2007 11:38 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 11:38
3. Posted by HERMIE | October 25, 2007 12:40 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Although we can find some amusement in the CodePink operative's antics, what if the Congresscritter who let the moonbat in, also ordered the Capitol police not to make her go through the metal detectors, or be searched?
Considering how the Capitol police has been folding under Dem pressure, I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen.
3. Posted by HERMIE | October 25, 2007 12:40 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 12:40
4. Posted by stan25 | October 25, 2007 12:55 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Isn't CodePinko a terrorist organization? If they aren't, they should be and be denied any kind of protection. It also seems to me that Code Pink is a 503c3 outfit and as such, are not permitted to be political. Now if a conservative group did the same thing, they would be investigated to the nth degree and the people that disrupted the proceedings would be hauled off to the slammer.
4. Posted by stan25 | October 25, 2007 12:55 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 12:55
5. Posted by mantis | October 25, 2007 1:16 PM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
It also seems to me that Code Pink is a 503c3 outfit and as such, are not permitted to be political.
501(c)(3) classification prohibits organizations from participating "in any campaign activity for or against political candidates," not from "being political."
Being crazy in Congress is not "campaign activity."
5. Posted by mantis | October 25, 2007 1:16 PM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 13:16
6. Posted by Amphipolis | October 25, 2007 1:52 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Wasn't Petraeus also interrupted?
These are deliberate acts meant to humiliate, delay, and distract Bush Administration officials. We need an exhaustive list of these incidents and the members of congress who gave these people tickets.
6. Posted by Amphipolis | October 25, 2007 1:52 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 13:52
7. Posted by jaymaster | October 25, 2007 2:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There might actually be a few Republican Congress critters who would turn a blind eye to this kind of stuff.
A pretty strong argument could be made that the publicity generated by the code pink type wackos does more harm than good for the Democrats.
7. Posted by jaymaster | October 25, 2007 2:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 14:14
8. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 2:22 PM | Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Once again a loon from the left has given the right an excuse to divert attention from the real issues like Rice's testimony before the committee.
Then again I'm probably wrong. I await the serious discussion of the SoS's testimony.
8. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 2:22 PM |
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 14:22
9. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 2:44 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
rance:
Then again I'm probably wrong. I await the serious discussion of the SoS's testimony.
Why wait? Start one one your own blog where you can be an editor-in-chief and dictate what is written... oh wait...
You haven't got one... so your relegated to being a pseudo-editor-in-chief here.
9. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 2:44 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 14:44
10. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 2:49 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
marc,
If Jay Tea doesn't like my criticism, he is free to impound my vowels.
10. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 2:49 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 14:49
11. Posted by Spurwing Plover | October 25, 2007 2:59 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Code pink is no different then the usial bunch of persons trying to push the soclist ideas on us
11. Posted by Spurwing Plover | October 25, 2007 2:59 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 14:59
12. Posted by Oyster | October 25, 2007 4:16 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Rance never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
12. Posted by Oyster | October 25, 2007 4:16 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 16:16
13. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 4:24 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
rance:
If Jay Tea doesn't like my criticism, he is free to impound my vowels.
Or banish you altogether. But that's his right and that goes along with being an actual writer/contributer/editor here.
Unlike you who would rather snipe from the sidelines for no reason other than you don't like content or content you feel is missing.
Too bad... get over yourself.
Or better yet get your own blog... surely The Bluies could use your help.
As an aside, how many complaints about "missing" content have you sent to the NYT or WaPo? Or do you save your "editor duties" for Wizbang?
13. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 4:24 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 16:24
14. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 4:31 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
So theis thread has gone to commenting on comments that comment on a sideshow to actual events of substance.
And by noting that, I have moved the thread one more step away from those events of substance.
I think if one of you wants to remark on this we will make it to a full six degrees of separation from substance.
And blogs are going to replace the MSM how?
14. Posted by Rance | October 25, 2007 4:31 PM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 16:31
15. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 5:18 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
rance:
I think if one of you wants to remark on this we will make it to a full six degrees of separation from substance.
No need. Your first comment containing a whiny little snark-fest over content is worth 10 degrees alone. Of course the irony is you fail to comprehend that comment WAS a "separation from substance."
15. Posted by marc | October 25, 2007 5:18 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 17:18
16. Posted by Gmac | October 25, 2007 5:54 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Its a sado-masochistic relationship from what I can see. Codepinkies wear the weird getups and crack their whips over their quivering clients (Democrats) who enjoy the whole spectacle all the while they are the enablers that allowed the codepinkies in to start with.
Yes, its an entirely symbiotic relationship that will cause much untold mirth if anyone has the nads to discover who the weenie is that enabled them.
16. Posted by Gmac | October 25, 2007 5:54 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on October 25, 2007 17:54