CIA In Trouble, Or Politics As Usual At DOJ?

Is there really a split between Obama and Holder on any potential CIA investigations, or is Obama looking for a strong card to play? Obama does seem to have a low tolerance for splits within the ranks.

We know who would be thrilled to see these investigations. The same Left that he's been losing over a compromise on health care. Dangling it now doesn't mean it has to happen and any positive effect on the Left doesn't have to last forever.

At the same time, there could be just enough Republicans weak enough to give something up on health care to make the thought of this type of investigation go away. At the very least, it wouldn't be wrong to say Obama could play this card two ways. So, is the administration playing it straight here? h/t Instapundit. Ed Lasky at American Thinker says DOJ is playing politics on the Black Panther case. Could he and Obama be doing the same thing here?

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda.

Comments

[WBestPresidentEver]

In this case, you can bet the left hand "knows" what the right hand is doing. These scum bags will try anything and everything right now to try to take the FOCUS off the healthcare bill upon us. Any distractions they can offer up is what they are after.
Obama, Holder, and the rest of this mobster gang are all liars.
I do not believe ANYTHING they say. Obama and Holder are in this together. Obama can play innocent if he wants to and act like he is not interested in going forward with any further investigations but that is all it amounts to. He is "pretending". Lets call it what it is. He is a LIAR !

[James]

WBest: Calling the President a liar does not make it so. Care offer any evidence, or are you just in a screaming mood?

The techniques employed by OUR CIA would not pass the Nuremberg small test. Why do you defend war criminals? I thought conservatives believed in law and order? Guess not. Guess they believe in Old West style anarchy.

The GOP could be back on the scene in 10 minutes be embracing a law and order platform, and demanding accountability. They would have to throw W/Cheney under the bus, and most of the country would pay real money to see that.

[MICHAEL SPENCER]

Are you serious? Did you read the article? WhAT EVIDENCE do you of any of these silly allegations. Are therse jusgt your "observations"? Obama is a politician. All politicians lie at sometime. Bush, Reagan (contras). etc But I do not think a prudent wise person can claim if someone is "pretending" I stay away from guesses about folks motivations and stick to the facts. And the facts is that Holder and/or Obama had nothing do do with these allegations.

One other thing. If CIA employees killed those in captured, or dropped a bomb on another country, or assassinated another country's political leaders, should we do nothing?

[James]

Michael, we should follow the law, in call cases. That's all I am asking. Investigations will reveal what laws were broken. Conservatives have every interest in knowing this, because this issue is not going away.

Or are you afraid of the law? Why ARE conservatives so dagblammed afraid of all the time? It really clouds judgement.

[Peach]

if you look back to January you will see that every time Obama is floundering a "gonna investigate CIA" story is dumped. His minions are so stupid, they get so excited every time and nothing happens. The administration will never do this.

[Tom]

James is using personalized attacks on posters (as he did over at another website almost verbatim) rather than discuss facts or present his evidence that Obama in not being deceptive. The use of are you "in a screaming mood", "are you afraid of the law" etc is very denigrating way and really meant to deflect from your right to post your views.

[mojo]

Oh please. Holder's a hand-puppet, he doesn't take a dump without the One's approval.

[James]

Tom, one cannot debate a mind in fear. All I see coming out of conservatives is gloom and doom. I see excuses being made to do away with the rule of law because "they" are coming. I see deflections away from investigations that might just bring us all closer to the truth, and real accountability for real law-breakers. It concerns me deeply that the GOP used to be a law and order party and is no longer. This is not good for the country.

There is no debate here because no one wants it. Calling the president a liar is not debate. Challenging me to prove it false is not debate. It's fruitless thrashing about.

If you think he lies, prove it. It's YOUR extraordinary claim. Please produce the extraordinary evidence.

[Rich K]

Gee I think I should get all in a lather about some CIA ops getting tied in knots over their conduct,,NOT.
If this is all the Administation has to Deflect critisism of the HC debate its pretty watered down milk in my book.
What they need is a war. Oh wait,they got one of those already,My Bad.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Jimbob you're just joking around right? I mean there is no possible way that you're serious....or this foolish. Maybe pick up a history book..you wont look nearly as goofy.

[JohnFLob]

james: "Or are you afraid of the law? Why ARE conservatives so dagblammed afraid of all the time? It really clouds judgement."

What is Obama, are the Democrats, afraid of? Why won't he/they release his school records for instance? Their refusal calls into question their judgment and clouds peoples' impression of him.

[rrpjr]

James: do you want evidence the President is a liar in general, or just on this specific matter?

[Mike2Cents]

Go for it, rrpjr...present your 'Obama is a liar' evidence.
And do you also have evdience that Bush is/was not a liar?
Be good to get this all settled once and for all.

And when you are done with that, do you have any thoughts or an opinion about the actual matter at hand, the actions of the CIA that are being refered to?
(and that took place under the last administration)

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"....do you have any thoughts or an opinion about the actual matter at hand, the actions of the CIA that are being refered to? "

remember that what goes around comes around

[guru]

James,

Either (1) you are a joke or (2) you must be joking. "I favor a single-payer system" and "you can keep your current health insurance". "I will get us out of Iraq immediately" "Afghanistan is the right war" "Bill Ayers is just an acquaintance" "I'm getting rid of the IG who busted my buddy Kevin Johnson's organization that happened to be raising money for me and funneling it into my causes because I've 'lost faith' in the IG" "All dealings will be on CSpan (before the deal with big pharma occurred in private)" "We must get past racism" "I'm only affiliated with ACORN in passing". Then there's his silence regarding the new black panther party intimidating voters and having the case dropped by his Justice Dept. AFTER securing a conviction, his silence regarding the attack of the black protester in St. Louis (who was attacked by SEIU thugs called out by him) and lastly regarding Holdmywanker's witch hunt against the CIA (when he earlier stated it was time to get past all that). And if you imagine my base is afraid of this investigation, think again. The nuremberg trials were held because of the atrocities of the nazis against the Jews. The Jews never attacked the nazis through the use of terrorism, but were instead pulled from their homes and their businesses to be sent to their mass extermination. To compare this to the harsh interrogations of people trying to kill Americans is patently absurd. The Geneva Convention, by the way, is highly outdated as it relates to the age of terrorism, and contrary to what you imagine a conviction of cia agents, cheney or bush will do for you limpwrists, we on the right enthusiastically embrace the possibility as our "bobby seal moment". we will take to the streets in small groups, armed and in protest of the jailing of our martyrs. you see, we're not stupid enough to LOSE our liberties first and then fight for them. been there, done that. and speaking of the "wrong war" in iraq, how do you thhink our allies the kurds feel about our conquest of iraq? do you think they're happy we saved them from mass extermination? if we could have done the same in rwanda would you have been happy? but then we woud have had no economic interest in rwanda, right? so it would be better to make a decision based on one favorable factor (saving people from mass extermination) rather than two? how a bout the geographical importance of iraq and the fact that it is next to turkey which desperately seeks acceptance into the eu. does it strike you that building an ally next to an ally is a sound principle? which you do you perceive as currently more dangerous, pakistan or turkey? is afghanistan accessible by sea? no. is iraq? yes. if we destroy the al-qaeda training grounds in afghanistan will al-qaeda really be gone? that's like saying that if we destroy fort jackson (or perhaps pearl harbor might serve as a better example) the us military will cease to be a threat. are you aware that afghanistan and iraq represent the two furthest outposts of militant anti-us islamic domination and so by attacking both we are in effect squeezing all of militant islam? how about the fact that iranians are persians and most of the islamic nations surrounding it are arab. should this play into our strategy? lastly, do you believe that compliance with the Geneva convention, drafted during days when conventional warfare was still, well, conventional, can really be used in a fight against something as unpredictable as terrorism? Oh yeah, two other points: a legal end run mighht be made around the 8th amendmennt if it is invoked if it can be proven that the "torture" was a regular procedure (remember it's cruel AND unusual, not OR unusual). Finally, remember Nixon? six years after he resigned midway through his term, Reagan destroyed Carter in a landslide. It only took four years of Carter after 8 years of Nixon and Ford, and we held the presidency for the next 12 consecutive years and 20 of the next 28. cheerio.

[SacTownMan]

Deflection, Deflection, Deflection!!!

Whenever Xerxes actions are questioned or people start looking at his policies the Saul Alinski playbook comes into play!!

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314

"He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44] precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president."

"Toward this end, Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank.” In other words, organizers should keep a stockpile of comparatively small crusades which they are already prepared to conduct, and to which they can instantly turn their attention after having won a major victory of some type."

Does this tactic sound familiar to anyone but the trolls???

The moonbats continue to be played by the great "community organizer" and are simply too stupid or driven by their ideology to see through Uncle Georgies smoke screens!!

Keep drinking the Koolaid boys!!!!

[BD57]

The particulars of the case ought to be paramount here.

First, were the "prosecutors" who initially reviewed the inspector general's report political appointees or career DOJ people? It's harder for Holder to explain re-opening these matters if it's the latter ("evil Bush Administration" doesn't work with non-political types - at least, it would not be an acceptable excuse for a CAREER employee).

Second, while it may be coincidence, it does seem the "we're going to go after Bush & 'his' people" stories come out at opportune times.

Right now, the Administration's health care plans are taking on water at a furious pace; "gee, we may not be able to have a public option" trial balloons are being floated; and the left in & out of Congress is threatening to walk if there's no public option. Oh, and to date, the "We're going after Bush & 'his' people" stories have yet to fail to rally the left behind Obama.

No accusations here, mind you - I'm just saying people are asking ....

[MSon]

Until we see some evidence that the DOJ will go after the Black Panthers, we don't really give a crap about the supposed "case" against the CIA. Holder is a piece-of-shit, who cares only about the usual Leftist nonsense (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that this is anything more than misdirect so we do focus on something other than the country going-to-hell-in-a-handbag because of the One's Marxist policies.

There was clear voter intimidation, it's captured for all to see, and yet the case was conveniently dropped. What about Michelle Obama's phony pay raise for the hospital she worked at and did nothing for? Ok, not a DOJ related thing, but the Obamas are thugs and thieves, Holder is a nasty piece of work, and to go after the CIA is just STUPID. But maybe it's good. Pelosi tried it, and her star has been on the wane ever since. Maybe it will help plummet the Obama Express into further waterfall declines in his popularity, as people realize he and Holder are simply traitors.

Are Bush and Cheney guilty of anything? I don't really give a crap at this point. "Rule of Law"? While we have a Mafia-like government ruining the country (not a typo, they are trying to RUIN it, not just run it), there is no rule of law. Staged townhalls for Obama, staged everything...the entire admin is PHONY. Not a decent one in the bunch.

[BDJ]

D'ohbama better be careful. The CIA is an organization that can and will burn him.

Can't wait until they do.

[daveinboca]

This CIA witch hunt is a gigantic red herring to distract from Obama's plummeting poll numbers. Why not investigate Holder for his malfeasance in recommending pardoning Marc Rich to BJ for a pardon? Isn't White House supervision of a special "interrogations unit" that will play pattycake with suspects rather than subject them to the same conditions they put upon innocent people even more ridiculous than ? We know where this entire bogus snipe hunt---both the specious "investigation" and the new "interrogation units" will go, with "revelations" coming out in dribs and drabs to distract the public from this POTUS's socialist agenda. Obama wants to change the public discourse with factitious detours away from his ObamaCare as it heads down the toilet into the sewage tank where it belongs. He's "flooding the zone" with distractions to keep whack-jobs on the left from pillorying him in the press.

And "Green Czar" Van Jones is a self-proclaimed Maoist subversive traitor whose Color of Change is a version of ACORN or SEIU, dedicated to looting the public treasury following the rules of Chicago "Early and Often" political rules.

[templar knight]

Ok, jimmie boy, here's one of Obama's lies. In his own words, during an interview with George Stenphapoulus in January, "On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinary talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."

Is that a good enough lie for you, jimmie? Just one of many, and many more to come.

[Wil]

James
You are an idiot and an absolute moron. You see, James, the CIA's job description is to bend or break the law of countries or sometimes circumvent foreign laws in order to gather important intelligence, recruit intelligence assets , do wet works or assassination of threats against the United States and other black activities with the consent of the US President and with Congressional oversight. Other nations like Russia's FIS or it's well known ancestor KGB, Israel's Mossad, the UK's MI6 , China's intelligence services, Cuba's intelligence services does the same thing to us. In fact, all intelligence agencies like nothing better than to use their opponent's own Constitution or laws to cripple that's country's intelligence community in order to undermine or destroy the enemy from within.

And oh btw, the Nuremberg smell test does not apply to spies. Punishment when caught usually involves imprisonment, torture, blackmail and if you want to send a message, shot the spy and send the body back or hang the spy publicly with media cameras to embarrass that spy's country.

[rrpjr]

Just curious what the threshold of lies is before we can all agree he’s a liar. I’m guessing the famous leftist rigor that applies to treatment of terrorists also applies here? Good, just wanted to be sure.

For some reason my favorite Obama lie, which has largely been overlooked, was when he told an Israeli audience that he was a member of the Senate Banking Committee ("my committee").
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY5MGVjMGU5ZGQ1ZWFhMmM0YmRhODZhNmE4N2M4MTQ=

“If committed by a Republican, this would be a gaffe of historic proportions. Even a Senator as inattentive to his duties as Obama certainly knows what committees he serves on. For him to fabricate the claim, out of whole cloth, that the Senate Banking Committee is "[his] committee," strikes me as another sign of Obama's megalomania.” John Hinderaker

I'm guessing one reason Obama can lie so fluently is because he has a general contempt for people, and furthermore feels the media will always cover for him. I’m sure because that he was in Israel, before an audience for which he has special contempt, it was just that much easier.

Then there was his grand, seminal lie about campaign financing. Few people may remember, but ethical campaigning was the original cornerstone of his campaign (seems like another age, no?). This was well after McCain’s withering letter to Senator Obama about reneging on his efforts at reforming campaign ethics. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml

Read the letter. It’s a piece of work. As McCain noted at the time, Obama’s word meant little.

Then there’s this one, too lengthy for me to summarize here, but... “Obama is addicted to lying. He just can't help himself. Another day, another lie. Today, it's on the teamsters.”
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/another_day_another_obama_lie_this_time_about_the_teamsters

Then...

“Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. “
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/03/30/more-obama-lies-media-will-ignore

Then...

"Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation … came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land."
Segregation was not "the law of the land" in the 1950s. It was the law in a minority of states.

Or his recent lies on healthcare: 1. about what surgeons charge for the amputation of diabetic limbs, and 2. about a so-called endorsement by the AARP.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/11/wild-misrepresentation-watch-obama-lies-about-aarp-endorsement/

More fast-and-loose with history: Obama’s Cairo speech was a tissue of inaccuracies.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson061509B.html

Let’s not even count the broken promises (no mandates on health insurance, no lobbyists, no earmarks, tax cut for 95% of Americans, etc. ad nauseum) the bad faith (“republicans want to blow up public education”), childish braggadocio (“I passed 26 of my own bills in one year”) and basic bullshit (no rationing, you can keep your doctor, we’ll contain costs, etc.).

The boldest and most public liar we’ve ever had as president.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Thank you !

Posted by: guru | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Posted by: MSon | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Posted by: BDJ | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Posted by: daveinboca | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 07:20 PM
Posted by: Wil | Monday, August 24, 2009 at 07:41 PM

JAMES....STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE YOU SCUMBAG.

[Respawn]

James,

Rather than shout at you, let me try to engage what I THINK your point is. We are advocating, according to you, not following the "rule of law" with regard to terror suspects. OK, I'll bite - what law? What law, SPECIFICALLY, do you believe applies to this situation, and why? You tell me what law applies, and why it applies, and I'll try to engage your argument. Just saying "rule of law," frankly, doesn't mean shit. What law applies, and why does it apply, to the capture, imprisonment and interrogation of terror suspects, "irregular" combatants, armed and non-uniformed insurgents, international weapons smugglers and foreign intelligence operatives? Enquiring minds want to know.