Attorney General Reopened Investigation Two Years Ago
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, with Barack Obama fresh off his “I killed bin Laden” victory tour, Attorney General Eric Holder’s criminal investigation into the interrogation techniques utilized by CIA officers against captured terrorists is front page news again. Holder reopened the previously reviewed case after assuring Republicans that he would not do so.
In January of 2009, Republican opposition to Holder’s appointment as Attorney General subsided following his “private assurances” that he did not intend to pursue CIA officers who acted in “good faith” when conducting harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
Seven months later, Holder appointed a prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA interrogation abuses. In perfect Kerryesque form, a Justice Department official said at the time that opening a criminal investigation was something Holder “has come reluctantly to consider.”
So, was the Attorney General against the investigation before he was for it, or did he bamboozle the Republicans by saying what he had say to win confirmation? Let’s pick “B.”
The Obama Administration faces tough new criticism, as does Holder, following the now irrefutable confirmation from multiple sources that water-boarding (torture to liberals) played a key, early role in connecting the dots that ultimately led to bin Laden’s visit from Navy SEALs.
One would assume that Team Obama might finally reconsider its position on enhanced interrogation techniques. Not so much.
While on the New York leg of his victory tour, Obama met with Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles “Chic” Burlingame, (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon), along with other families who were victims of 9/11. Burlingame confronted Obama about the Holder investigation of the men who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which multiple sources confirm produced critical intelligence in the hunt for bin Laden.
Burlingame: “We wouldn’t be here today if they hadn’t done their jobs. Can’t you at least give him [Holder] your opinion?” Obama’s curt response? ”No, I won’t.” At which point he turned and walked away.
While Barack “We don’t spike the football” Obama basks in the afterglow of HIS success, the irony is astounding: Policies and procedures that candidate Obama railed against during the 2008 campaign were critical in the end; justice was served to Osama bin Laden in spite of the best efforts of Captain Awesome and his minions.
The distinct possibility that this president would most likely have nothing to brag about today, had he been president during the seven years following 9/11, is not lost on millions of Americans.
You gotta give credit to Eric Holder though; at least he didn’t announce last week that the Justice Department will indict the CIA agents — talk about letting the air out of the Obama Victory Balloon. Would that have been a bummer for the White House, or what?
The intransigence of liberals on this issue seems more preposterous that ever — that is, until we remember one of the basic tenets of liberalism:
Liberals take a position, (which is usually based on emotion), then search for facts to support that position. In lieu of factual support, they will generally do one of three things:
1. Ignore the facts
2. Manipulate the facts
3. Make up their own “facts”
The fact that we (author included) give Obama credit for agreeing with the gutsy call to send in the SEALs should not, and does not mean that we must also ignore reality. The thought that, under the Obama Administration, a terrorist in the hands of the CIA, with knowledge of an imminent catastrophic attack on the United States, would be asked “pretty please with sugar on it?” is frightening. High-minded and naive too.