Obama to AG Holder: This distraction card is pretty neat, ain't it?

Holder: Yeah, it's not like people are paying attention anyway...

As I try to locate a live feed of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, that is acceptible to the firewall at my school, I came across a few articles that talk about Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, and his threat to prosecute members of the CIA who engaged in the "harsh interrogation techniques" used against detainees during the Bush Administration. Of course, we should know by now that all of Obama's words have expiration dates. He'll go back on a promise if it serves to keep the electorate drunk on ObamaAid. The idea is if he continues to hammer home how bad former President Bush is, by trotting out the lie that he acted as a "unitary executive," that his poll numbers will increase. As I said about Republicans and their impeachment of President Clinton, no matter how right they may have been in going after him, the GOP suffered at the polls because the electorate felt that politics drove them to do it.

When it was revealed this weekend that former Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA to withhold a secret program from Congress, I could hear liberals wailing about "rule of law." As more details emerged, I concluded that liberals' wailing was more of the same, that the issue they were wailing about wasn't all that serious. The program considered ways to kill or capture Al Qaeda members in the wake of 9/11. Matt Corley at TP, that's Think Progress, not what you should wipe his words with, claims that Cheney's orders violated the National Security Act of 1947, Article V...except, he forgot the caveat, that the protection of classified information is of utmost importance (Good gravy marie, that's common sense!). In addition, Congress was told that the program really wasn't so much a program, as had been noted by a CIA official who has the credibility to speak on it (and speaking about asswipes...this is what Turbin Durbin had to say about the "secret" program).

Eric Holder, who is a veteran at selectively applying the law, is pondering the decision whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes committed during the Bush years. Apparently, liberals aren't aware of the many committees and other types of investigations that attempted to bring to light any wrongdoing by Bush and his cohorts. They want Bush and Cheney to shut up and color, while the current president attempts to distract the populace from his disatrous effect on the economy, by trying to remind us how bad BushCo was. Democrats have been trying since January 4, 2007, to find something with which to investigate the former president.

It's nice to know that liberals aren't all that interested in killing Osama bin Laden now, and believe that any attempts to do so was evident of their political posturing. Democrats needed to convince the electorate that they were more serious about fighting terrorism than Republicans were, but unfortunately for them, Michael Moore's fat ass stinking up an entire row at the 2004 Democratic National Convention spoiled all that. And four years later, Democrats again claimed the high road on terrorism by stating that Republicans overextended our military in a two-front war, without noting how much our military, not to mention our intelligence agencies, had accomplished in destroying terror networks in those countries (perhaps they haven't noticed the fact that Osama bin Laden has been relegated to cassette tapes...). But if Alcee Hastings (D-FL) gets his way, those of us on the Right, who criticize Obamessiah's foreign policy may have to pack our bags and be shipped away to those reeducation camps that liberals thought Bushitler created in the wake of 9/11.

Have a great day...