Director Panetta, if you can’t get a guy who accuses your agency of profiting off 9/11 out of this administration, you probably ought to resign.
What does it say about this administration that it had no problem hiring this guy in the first place, let alone that he still has his job?
And yes, he’s clearly lying.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Proof that he’s lying.
Why is anyone surprised by this administration anymore? Not sure how to phrase this diplomatically, so I’ll just be frank: Duh!
Rand, I really don’t get it.
If Jones were a more fundamentally patriotic politician who didn’t believe wholeheartedly in something like 9/11 truth, and wanted to prosecute the war in Afghanistan properly, “et cetera, et cetera,” would it still be OK for him to be working towards basically turning the energy sector into a government managed patronism scheme where those who agree with the administration can more easily get jobs than those who don’t?
I think it’s nice that they’ve found out all this BS, but really, aren’t we asking the wrong questions to begin with?
I think it’s nice that they’ve found out all this BS, but really, aren’t we asking the wrong questions to begin with?
Yes. I think the notion of putting a communist in charge of creating jobs is ludicrous, except that actually, they can create jobs — they just can’t create wealth. That’s one of the most corrosive myths of the public discourse, that all that matters is “job” creation.
Yes. I think the notion of putting a communist in charge of creating jobs is ludicrous,
Again, kinda missing the point. If he were only a lukewarm keynesian socialist like Bush, would he suddenly be the “right” person to put in charge of shutting down one industry and creating another one, more patronage-laden, in its place?
There is no “right” person for that position.
Phil, I think the point is, this is absurdity piled atop absurdity. The cherry on top of the whipped cream.
The fact the rest of the whipped cream is also covered with nuts, has already been noted.
Phil,
Yes, there is no right person for htat position because the position itself is a bad idea, but we are stuck with that position (elections have consequences), so at the very least we should make sure that we don’t have someone in that job who will make things even worse.
I believe you have missed Rand’s point.
I think part of what Phil’s pointing towards is “Shouldn’t the ideal candidate for the job of setting-fire-to-cash-wholesale be someone that’s essentially too incompetent to manage to rub two sticks together? Instead of someone competent enough to hit WalMart for lighter fluid and matches?”
Having, say, Alinsky as green jobs czar would be freaky. Comparatively speaking, a clueless political hack looking at a sinecure is “fine.”
No, I’m trying to say that we shouldn’t have czars at all.
It doesn’t matter who’s running the program if the program itself is bad.