Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Friday, June 29, 2018

Does Nancy Pelosi Have a Drinking Problem?

Does Nancy Pelosi have a drinking problem?  What had been a problem of chronic brain freeze and the occasional slurred word has become an inability to deliver a sentence.  Given that the aging San Francisco political hack has been losing on every front to President Donald Trump, and is seeing her dreamed of "blue wave" becoming a rout, perhaps the self-medication is not surprising.  One would think, however, the Democrats would do a better job of masking their most embarrassing members, but then this is what is in charge.  Nancy the drunk, mad Maxine, and slippery Chuck Schumer are the face of the once national Democrat Party.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Melanie Phillips: The Bitter Tears of Nancy Pelosi

By Melanie Phillips

Why did Nancy Pelosi choke up? The Democratic Party leader in America’s House of Representatives stormed from the floor of the House before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had finished saying his goodbyes following his speech to Congress.

Pelosi was “near tears,” she said, over what she had heard.

What had so upset her? She was, she said, “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States” and “by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Pelosi: Catholics ‘Have This Conscience Thing’

Obviously the "conscience thing" was lacking in Mrs. Pelosi's  "Catholic" formation.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic renowned for her support of legalized abortion, has criticized efforts by the US bishops and others in support of conscience-protection legislation for health care workers.
 The Washington Post reports:
Catholic health-care providers in particular have long said they’d have to go out of business without the conscience protections that Pelosi says amount to letting hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion.” Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it...but they have this conscience thing’’ that she insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.

On one occasion, she said, laughing, one of her critics on the topic of abortion, speaking on the House floor, said, “Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the Pope. They think like this. And of course I do — I think the Pope would agree — and I know more than you, too, mister.’’

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GOP Rep. Buyer Blasts Acting Dem Speaker: "This is Why the People Have Thrown You Out"

Rush Limbaugh provided a wonderful example of why the American people, in their righteous indignation, have thrown the statist thugs out of the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Here's a glimpse of how the "People's House," under Democrat administration, has foisted Obamacare and scores of other unwanted, big-government, budget-busting legislation on the American people.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Nancy Pelosi's Grip on House Slips

From Politico

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not accustomed to the word she’s been hearing far more frequently in recent days: “no.”

Over the past two weeks, Pelosi has faced a series of subtle but significant challenges to her authority — revolts from Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition and politically vulnerable first- and second-term members.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Abuse of Power

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'

From The Wall Street Journal

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can't sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children's health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.

The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan's 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn't the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O'Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn't used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all—and can't become law without those amendments.

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

Regrets, they've got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning.

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don't like it, "then that's what elections are for."

In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Pelosi Using Air Force to Chauffer Her Kids Around?

From Fox Nation

Using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests,
Judicial Watch uncovered thousands of pages of travel documents related to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s use of military aircraft.

What hasn’t been revealed so far is that military aircraft are being used to shuttle Pelosi’s kids and grandkids between DC and San Francisco without any Congressional representatives even onboard! Put simply, the United States Air Force is serving as a multi-billion dollar chauffeur- and baby-sitting service for Nancy Pelosi’s kids and grandkids — presumably because commercial travel is beneath the families of the autocrats.

Read more here.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi's In-Flight 'Food, Booze'

Speaker's trips 'are more about partying than anything else'

From WorldNetDaily
By Bob Unruh

It reads like a dream order for some wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Pelosi Says She Can't Pass Health Bill

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A Den of Thieves -- A Day of Reckoning

In our lifetime, we remember only one previous upset that was as improbable as the outcome we expect in Massachusetts this evening -- and that was when James L. Buckley, older brother of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., was elected to the U. S. Senate from New York in 1970. In that race liberals were split between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat. James Buckley won with 38.7% of the vote in a field of six. Tonight should be even more astounding.

As those notorious gun and Bible clinging conservatives in Massachusetts head to the polls today, it is important for all Americans to remember what brought us to this juncture, and it has everything to do with the criminal thugs in the White House and the Congressional leadership.

The following is just some of what we know about these felons. How much more is hidden?


The amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at The International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra Compensation and explanatory brochures that described his Tax liabilities.



The amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Dominican Republic rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he doesn't speak Spanish.



The INCREASE in the amount of petty cash each of our Congressional representatives voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.
That's a $40 + million INCREASE! See video here from Fox


The amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.



The amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

Wall Street Journal


The approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

True: http://online/
Wall Street Journal


The amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so... Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."



The estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.



The amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's former directors.

Wall Street Journal


The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

True: Washington Post


($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. The son, Craig Obey, is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.


and this is a list of related stories:


($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms."



($4.19 billion) is the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to the fraudulent voter registration group, ACORN, under the auspices of "Community
Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio .


$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion):

The approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms" which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.



Background: Smmot-Hawley Act:

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Pelosi's Archbishop Corrects Her "Fundamental Misconceptions" about the Catholic Faith

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
We were delighted to read today that Nancy Pelosi's archbishop, George H. Niederauer, has corrected her "fundamental misconceptions" about the Catholic faith. On the heels of Bishop Tobin also correcting Patrick Kennedy, we hope the days of silence toward phony Catholics who unconscionably attempt to sit on the fence and claim to be "personally opposed to abortion but" sanction the slaughter of innocents are finally coming to an end.

Charlatans like Pelosi and Kennedy might attempt, for crass political reasons, to claim to be Catholic AND pro-abortion, but that can no longer be an option. They are in or they are out. It does not take a council of the world's bishops to excommunicate one. They have excommunicated themselves. They have defiantly declared they do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they have put themselves outside that community of shared belief on a crucial moral issue.

In putting an end to the charade and speaking clearly about what is at stake, Archbishop Niederauer is fulfilling his responsibility to govern, teach, and sanctify. He, and those bishops who have begun to speak clearly to Catholic politicians are also acting in great charity; charity not only for the millions of souls being aborted, but charity toward those who have put their immortal souls at stake by aiding and abetting murder. Ignoring the peril in which so many Catholic politicians have placed their souls would be/is a scandal. As shepherds of souls, bishops have the responsibility to impress upon politicians and those who may be led astray by them, the magnitude of what is at stake -- the fact that "those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance."

The way back to full communion, to union with what the Church teaches and what its members believe, is always available. It is the open door of the confessional, repentance and sacramental reconcilliation.

We hope and pray these politicians might have the grace to put the Word of God before that of the Democrat Party's platform.

Archbishop Niederauer's statement follows:

In a recent interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine (Dec. 21, 2009), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching. Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”

Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom. These misconceptions are widespread both within the Catholic community and beyond. For this reason I believe it is important for me as Archbishop of San Francisco to make clear what the Catholic Church teaches about free will, conscience, and moral choice.

Catholic teaching on free will recognizes that God has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17) As the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, makes so beautifully clear, God did not want humanity to be mere automatons, but to have the dignity of freedom, even recognizing that with that freedom comes the cost of many evil choices.

However, human freedom does not legitimate bad moral choices, nor does it justify a stance that all moral choices are good if they are free: “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1740) Christian belief in human freedom recognizes that we are called but not compelled by God to choose constantly the values of the Gospel—faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, integrity and compassion.

It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.

What, then, is to guide the children of God in the use of their freedom? Again, the bishops at the Council provide the answer—conscience: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment . . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” (GS, No. 16) Conscience, then, is the judgment of reason whereby the human person, guided by God’s grace, recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. In all we say and do, we are obliged to follow faithfully what we know to be just and right.

How do we form and guide our consciences? While the Church teaches that each of us is called to judge and direct his or her own actions, it also teaches that, like any good judge, each conscience masters the law and listens to expert testimony about the law. This process is called the education and formation of conscience.

Catholics believe that “the education of conscience is a lifelong task.” (CCC, No. 1784) Where do we go for this education of our consciences? Our living tradition teaches us that “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (CCC, No. 1785)

Our Catholic beliefs about free will, conscience and moral choice are rooted in the Good News of Jesus Christ’s teaching and his redemptive life, death and resurrection: “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1); “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2Cor. 3:17); we glory “in the liberty of the children of God.” (Rom. 8:17). Common caricatures of Christian morality portray believers as living in fear of punishment or concerned only with an eternal reward. Long ago, however, St. Basil the Great, a fourth-century bishop and theologian, taught that the Christian, in living a moral life according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “does not stand before God as a slave in servile fear, nor a mercenary looking for wages, but obeys for the sake of the good itself and out of love for God as his child.” (CCC, No. 1828)

As participants in the life of the civil community, we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom. Because of these convictions we commit ourselves to a continuing witness to, and dialogue about, the Gospel values that underlie our understanding of freedom, conscience, and moral choice.

From January 15, 2010 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

One Catholic Priest, and Eleven Other Pro-lifers Were Arrested for Tearing Up Nancy Pelosi's 'Health Care' Bill

From Christian Newswire

On Thursday Afternoon, November 5, 2009, 12 pro-lifers were arrested inside or outside in the hall at Nancy Pelosi's office at #235 Cannon office building.

They entered, with two complete copies of the bill - all 2,000 pages (4,000) - and proceeded to rip it up, page by page, and strew it on the floor.

Approximately 150 supporters were in the hall, chanting: "Kill the bill!" About 10 supporters of the bill chanted, "Health care for all!" Aprox 30 police were on site, arresting pro-lifers, one at a time. No supporters of the bill were arrested.

Among those arrested was pro-life legend, Father Norman Weslin, age 78.

Raw footage of the protest follows:

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Obama Is A Better Community Organizer Than We Knew

We don't give The One credit for much, but we have to hand it to him, he is turning out to be the best community organizer America has ever seen! Across the nation a majority of Americans are opposed to a government takeover of health care, angry about runaway spending and looming inflation, enraged about power grabs at the expense of free enterprise, refusing to accept crippling energy taxes, and fighting mad over attempts to stifle free speech and set up a network of government informants.

Obama has put Congressional Democrats in the position of having to cancel community meetings out of fear of outraged citizens. Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY) has cancelled all future meetings with constituents because as the following video makes clear, they reject the radical Obama-Pelosi agenda.

Hat Tip: DRVC Catholics

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Pelosi-CIA Situation 'Untenable,' Security Risk

An Iowa congressman is pushing for a resolution calling for the suspension of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's security clearance.

From OneNewsNow
By Chad Groening

Speaker Pelosi (D-California) continues to refuse to provide evidence of her allegation that the CIA lied to Congress about interrogation techniques used at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. On Friday she brushed aside reporters' questions to elaborate on her earlier charges that the CIA lied about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects. The speaker said she would say no more on the matter.

"I have made the statement that I am going to make on this," she said emphatically when questioned. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment, and what we are doing is staying on our course and not be [sic] distracted from it."

Nancy PelosiSteve KingCongressman Steve King (R-Iowa) thinks Pelosi's refusal to give details on her allegations jeopardizes the trust between Congress and the CIA.

"This is an untenable situation," says King. "It puts our entire national security at risk, and it must be resolved."

The congressman says the speaker's accusations are a serious matter. "...[S]ince she cannot be legitimately briefed, because she has directly challenged the integrity of the CIA, ...I'm asking that her security clearance be suspended or removed until such time as the situation is resolved."

King says if Congresswoman Pelosi is unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support her allegation, the American people will be left with no choice but to conclude that she made this allegation for political purposes.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

What Did Pelosi Know, and When Did She Know It?

Today's Washington Times has an excellent editorial on the dilemma facing Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Even the Obama appointed Director of Central Intelligence is suggesting that his former colleague is a liar and that she tone down the rhetoric. Sadly, she has a long history of being fast and loose with the truth.

What is clear is that either the Central Intelligence Agency, and all those other Members of Congress they briefed, are lying, or Mrs. Pelosi is lying. When any such questions arose in the Bush administration, her response was to call for a Congressional investigation. Given that either the Speaker of the House or the Director of Central Intelligence is a liar, we believe that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should initiate a full and public investigation to settle the matter and take what steps are needed to remove the official that can no longer be trusted by the American public. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is divided equally, with 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans; they are in the best position to sort this out.

When Mrs. Pelosi was suggesting that the Bush Administration had politicized the Justice Department, she said: "We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed. I want to see the truth come forth." Surely, at a time when good, trustworthy intelligence information is vital to Congress and to the safety of millions of Americans, this matter cannot "go unreviewed." Let "the truth come forth."