Reply #90: Sorry if I implied that, I know you do. I was thinking (writing) [View All]

[sabrina 1]

out load and more or less talking to myself, as when I first saw the reports about the WH involvement, I assumed the president was aware from the beginning. But then I realized there was nothing to prove that, and the timeline given says he was briefed on Tuesday ... although that could mean 'updated'. I cannot find it now, but I did think that someone had said that the president supported Vilsack's decision (to fire her), however, that too could have come later, after the fact.

Sorry about that, having read your posts on a regular basis, and found you to be very informed with little to disagree with you on, agreed with you on, I had no doubt you knew what 'WH' meant. Sometimes this medium makes it hard to express one's thoughts as only the words we type are what can be seen ... :-)

Off to read post #79 ...

Edit, just read #79 ~ yes, someone is not telling the truth. What a mess they created by their desperate fear of the buffoons on the far out fringes of the far right. Doesn't give you much confidence in their handling of issues relating to war and peace, or the HC reform bill. Who scares them when it comes to making those momentous decisions?