Learn To Recognize When Beloved Leader Knows He's Lying

Yeah, yeah, we know when he's lying: he's speaking.

But let's watch him squirm!



Let's give Beloved Leader the benefit of the doubt:

An adviser whose name he has trouble recalling tells him there's new info on Iranian nuke stuff.

But it'll take time to verify and stuff.

Beloved Leader asks no questions.

But if McConnell cannot verify the info at that time, why is he is mentioning it? And in view of the (alleged) passive response, why not volunteer to inform B.L. of the importance of the news he's bringing?

And if McConnell was hedging, why didn't B.L. maybe ask him to expedite the assessment of the new intel. B.L. pretty much implies he didn't think it was important enough that he couldn't just sit around waiting passively.

Even taking B.L.'s weaselly response as true (no reason to, of course), this paints a bad picture of him and his leadership (I know, other than as a front, he has exercised no leadership as prez). Only question is how bad.

And of course, as he continues to look, as here, as something of a fucked-up moron, he hurts GOP chances in 2008 (a good thing of course): I mean, it's hard to campaign as someone who will continue this. Who wants a continuation of this?

Or in other words, B.L.'s response taken at face value, the short version is to ask: WTF?

But there's also a missed point here by focusing on this clip instead of the recent past.

As noted previously, this NIE is based on pretty much deeply inside info which (unless there's paranoid, Angelton-like stuff going on) has been adequately (maybe competently) vetted. So let's step back and ask: All the alleged intel that there was major nuke action in Iran: What were the sources for that? Any quality source? Or knowing Our Leaders, maybe they were just blowing smoke without any factual support?

And Josh Marshall gives his 2¢ for those who, you know, need a professional's opinion. (Hint: we're pretty much in sync.)