Thursday, June 18, 2009


White House Now Employing Obamaspeak Against Walpin

Almost As Creamy Rich As "Gigantic Cajones"

Hilarious: Now Obama's surrogate in the Walpin firing is spewing Obamaspeak. Byron York reports:

A top White House lawyer called the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin an act of "political courage," according to House Republican aides who were in a meeting with the lawyer Wednesday.

Norman Eisen, who is the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with staffers for Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday. Eisen, along with a few White House staffers who accompanied him, "wanted to talk broadly about inspectors general," says a GOP aide familiar with what went on at the meeting. "When we pressed them on specific questions and documents, they said they weren't prepared to give us information on that."
No doubt.

At today's meeting, Sen. Grassley's staffers wanted to know more about the White House review. "Unfortunately," Grassley writes in a letter just sent to White House counsel Gregory Craig, "Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter."

Just so I have this straight: breaking the law to protect a fraudulent supporter from taxpayer scrutiny is "an act of political courage"; I suppose Obama will now describe refusing to answer direct questions as "openness and transparency".

Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are:

1) Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?

2) Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin's ability to serve as the Inspector General?

3) Was the communication about the Board's concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?

4) Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen's review?

5) How many witnesses were interviewed?

6) Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?

7) Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen's review about the events of May 20, 2009?

8) Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?

9) What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen's review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?

10) In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented," the letter also says he exhibited "other behavior" that led to questions about his capacity. What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?

11) If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin's capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?

12) If Mr. Walpin's telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

Walpin is indisputably not as the White House slandered him, as will become all too obvious as the scandal continues to fester.

Gigantic Hussein Cajones reminds me of the invaders in Mars Attacks!, who by the end of the movie are rampaging around Las Vegas, blasting everything to smithereens and vaporizing everyone in sight while broadcasting over loudspeakers, "We come in peace! We are your friends! We mean you no harm!"

Same with GHC: what he says while he destroys everything that makes America what it is, is the exact opposite of what you see; what he promises (a personal fave, a real knee-slapper: his claim to the AMA in his Obamacare speech: "I'll be honest with you.") is the exact opposite of what he then does.

That was the very first conclusion I ever drew about this feckless crapweasel (kudos to Jonah Goldberg for coining the term) the first time I heard him speechify: that he hides behind Orwellian doubletalk and therefore can't be trusted in the least; my spider-sense was not just tingling, it was on fire. He has proven me right every step of the way and will continue to do so. It's simply who he is.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?