Why do we have this routine display of the theater of the absurd to which we are forced to endure?

The leading thought for this article is that the confirmation hearings have become nothing but political theatre. Why should good people be subjected to such insane lines of questioning that occur all the time now? Allen West takes a look at the questions that President Trump’s CIA nominee, Gina Haspel, has been subjected to. Is there a better way for Congress to exercise its power of oversight of the Executive Branch?

As Written by Colonel Allen West for The Old School Patriot:

Well, some of you have already read the title to this missive and answered the question from your own perspective. I think this is a valid question considering the routine display of the theater of the absurd which we are forced to endure. It is as if we no longer need daily soap operas — they have been replaced by the over-the-top drama of Senate confirmation hearings. And yesterday was another example.

As reported by CNS News:

“In her confirmation hearing on Wednesday in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) asked Gina Haspel, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, whether she had ever been alone in a room with Trump. “You’ve been working with the administration now for fifteen months,” said Reed. “You have had the opportunity to brief the president. Have you ever been alone with the president?” “Senator,” Haspel responded, “I’m usually there with Senator [Dan] Coats [the Director of National Intelligence], a brilliant analyst who delivers the actual analytic briefing, and usually the national security adviser, the vice president.” Reed then explained that his question was inspired by fired FBI Director James Comey’s claim that President Trump had asked him in a private meeting for his personal loyalty. “There have been allegations—Mr. Comey, one—that while he was alone the president asked for a personal pledge of loyalty,” said Reed. “If you were ever approached by the president and asked for a personal pledge of loyalty, what would you respond?”

“Senator, my only loyalty is to the American people and the Constitution of the United States,” Haspel responded. “I am honor bound and will work very hard to deliver to this president and his administration the best performance and intelligence CIA can deliver.” She further told Reed: “I don’t believe that such a circumstance would ever occur.”

Perhaps I am confused, but what exactly did this line of questioning have to do with serving as the Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency? This is why I asked the question: it’s as though we have these utterly incompetent senators droning on about irrelevant inquiries, only to serve the purpose of drama and ideology. Remember the line of questioning from US Senator Cory Booker of former CIA Director, and now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo about same-sex issues? There are some who decry this was necessary to ensure that SecState Pompeo was not “homophobic.” I would offer this question: why did Barack Obama deliver $150B of laundered cash to Iran, a country that executes people for same-sex relationships?

My point is evident. Yes, I know the Article I enumerated power of the Legislative branch is to have oversight of the Executive branch. However, I wish the oversight — and the questions — were pertinent to the issue, and not some far-fetched conspiracy theory, like basing a question on someone as dishonorable as James Comey. Why not ask about operations and funding? Why not stay focused on what the critical roles, missions, duties, and responsibilities of the CIA or any government agency are for the person seeking confirmation? The reason these in-depth, serious questions are lacking is that these confirmation hearings have just become good old made-for-TV drama.

And, yes, I’m going to say what we all know is true: the progressive, socialist, left started it. The scoldings levied upon folks like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas ushered in ……



Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.