I didn't say he cooked it (which would make him a liar), but it's become plain to me, at least, that data delivered from intelligence agencies was served up in a way that the agencies knew would please the consumers.

I have no opinion on whether they did this on their own, as a reflection of traditional practice, or whether they were instructed to do this by a member or members of the Administration. Eventually we will figure it out. Maybe even before I die.

I know you would never deprive me of my free speech. Apart from the fact that you've not demonstrated that kind of character, it would take considerable effort to shut me up, and probably more than one person. And a lot of duct tape. :)

I also know that you aren't trying to degrade me. That reference was to the particular conversation with Tom.

Is the President a genius or a dope? Is he a brilliant hands-off manager or a manager whose hands are so off that they aren't in the same room with the managed? I've been listening to his supporters. When he's right, he's called brilliant; when he's wrong, he's just "not paying attention", which in a grown man says "not that bright" to me. So which is it? Machiavelli or Forrest Gump? Or is it ADD? My dilemma: if he's the genius that his supporters say he is, he's lying his face off and manipulating us all. If he's so dumb or so detached that he didn't get this, with access to data that nobody here has, then he's innocent, but can I trust him to make policy? If he's in the d&d category, who's pulling the strings?

This is a damn war. I would appreciate some informed leadership. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but my confidence has not been won by his performance. All the excuses tend to make me more suspicious rather than mollify me; I infer from excuses that there is something to hide.

That's where I'm coming from.

Regards--
Mary Anne