It is now crystal clear.
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is a national security risk.
Much is being made of President Trump’s decision not to inform Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the impending mission to hunt down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.
The President did exactly the right thing – and for the most obvious of reasons. Pelosi is allowing Congressman Adam Schiff to run a closed-door impeachment hearing – with Schiff leaking like a sieve. Every single leak is selectively designed to damage a duly elected president with the goal of undoing the 2016 election.
In fact, the one thing Pelosi has, ironically, managed to do is impeach the credibility of her speakership. Filled with a literal finger pointing rage, Pelosi’s conduct has vividly illustrated the obvious: she is a national security risk. When American lives were on the line she simply could not be trusted to know of the impending raid on al-Baghdadi.
The President himself has directly addressed the subject, saying this of Congressman Adam Schiff, Pelosi’s designated impeachment leader. Said the President, as reported by Fox News.
“The only thing is they were talking about why didn’t I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee, and the answer is because I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington,” Trump said. “You know that, I know that, we all know that. I’ve watched Adam Schiff leak. He’s a corrupt politician. He’s a leaker like nobody has ever seen before.”
And who is it that is allowing Schiff to do all his leaking? That would be Speaker Pelosi, who could remove Schiff from his position in a New York minute if she chose.
Instead, she has given Schiff a total pass, proving beyond doubt that she herself is a genuine risk to national security.
To contrast Pelosi’s conduct as Speaker one need look no further than the conduct of another Democrat who served as Speaker. That would be Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. In 1983, at the height of the Cold War, there was a Communist-led coup on the island of Grenada. President Ronald Reagan would absolutely not permit the establishment of another Soviet-backed take-over in America’s Caribbean back yard as had been the case with Cuba and Nicaragua. Not to mention that in the course of the coup American students attending medical school on the island had been taken hostage. This was barely four years removed from the day Iran had invaded the American embassy in 1979 and taken the embassy personnel as hostages. The weak response from President Jimmy Carter had resulted in the hostages remaining as hostages until Reagan was literally being sworn in on January 20, 1981. Reagan was not going to sit quietly with the students’ lives at stake.
Thus it was that Reagan summoned O’Neill and other congressional leaders to the White House on the eve of the top-secret invasion to inform them of the imminent mission called “Operation Urgent Fury.” “Mr. President, I have been informed but not consulted,” O’Neill huffed, leaving the White House in anger. Yet while opposing the invasion, the Speaker never leaked a word of what was about to happen – and neither did anyone else. While initially opposing the invasion in public once it took place and was revealed to the public, even O’Neill eventually came around to the realization that the invasion had indeed saved the lives of the American students. Doubtless, the realization dawned, particularly after photos captured a rescued student kissing the ground as he disembarked from the military plane that had returned him safely to US soil, that the American public overwhelmingly supported the invasion.
Reagan also made a point of excluding the media from coming along with the military to cover the invasion. Once over, they were invited in. Various outlets bitterly complained, with the head of CBS News railing about “unchecked censorship.” Reagan could not have cared less. This was national security and American lives were at stake. He would not tolerate leaks.
Nancy Pelosi is no Tip O’Neill. Had she been informed of the al-Baghdadi raid she would, based on her record, unquestionably have leaked the information or have Schiff leak it in his role as head of the House Intelligence Committee. And in so doing she would have risked the lives of the young Americans who carried out the raid, not to mention quite conceivably alerting al-Baghdadi himself of what was about to happen.
The quite reasonable response now to complaints about Pelosi and Schiff not being informed of the al-Baghdadi raid ahead of time?
That would be to ask why both still have a security clearance in the first place.