Please Eric do it.
Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama’s domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. “I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president’s agenda,” he says. “But that can’t be a part of my decision.”
And, then, President Obama can declassify a whole bunch of CIA and NSA materials that may shed some light on the entire 9/11 enhanced interrrogation technique’s flap. Of course, this may endanger American national security but Eric Holder, the Attorney General who encouraged President Clinton to pardon Marc Rich, a known criminal, knows best.
Now will it be suprising that after this piece in Newsweek that Obama or Rahm calls Holder in for a little chat?
I say put Leon Panetta, Dick Cheney, Porter Goss and George Tenent on the stand under oath and let the chips fall where they may.
But, it won’t happen.
But the question begs: Why do the Iraq naysayers never confront the counterfactual scenario of their dreams? If we had left Saddam in place, the sanctions would have disintegrated in short order â€” Security Council members France, Russia and China were bought and paid for in Oil-for-Food bribes. Once the sanctions had collapsed, Saddam would have been right back in business â€” his WMD programs ready to be up and running again (to the extent they were not running already) as he sat there with about $20 billion in Oil-for-Food profits and an ongoing relationship with al Qaeda (among many other jihadist groups).
If you want to say we shouldnâ€™t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say youâ€™d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists.
Then CIA Director George Tenet testifies about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States in this March 24, 2004 file photo. A senior White House counselor on Friday April 27, 2007 dismissed former CIA Director’s George Tenet portrait of a Bush administration that rushed to war in Iraq without serious debate. ‘The president did wrestle with those very serious questions,’ Dan Bartlett said.
Let’s see, former CIA Director Tenet accepts millions for a book to bash President Bush, to be disingenuous and untruthful at the same time.
Hummmmmm, sounds like good work if you can swing it.
Update:Quote of the Day
“George Tenet will have to explain why he waited this long to speak out and why he took the Medal of Freedom.”
— Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), “Late Edition,” CNN, 4/29
Indeed on both counts………
The more BUZZ, the more book sales…………