« | »

Holder Is Flexible About Military Tribunals

Reading between the lines from our very own Pravda, the New York Times:

After 9/11 Trial Plan, Holder Hones Political Ear


February 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — Last winter, when Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called the United States a “nation of cowards” for avoiding frank conversations on race, President Obama mildly rebuked him in public.

Out of view, Mr. Obama’s aides did far more. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina, the White House chief and deputy chief of staff, proposed installing a minder alongside Mr. Holder to prevent further gaffes — someone with better “political antennae,” as one administration official put it.

And yet Mr. Biden is allowed to go about on his own recognizance.

When he heard of the proposal at a White House meeting, Mr. Holder fumed; soon after, he confronted his deputy, David W. Ogden, who knew of the plan but had not alerted his boss, according to several officials. Mr. Holder fought off the proposal, signaling that his job was about the law, not political messaging.

A year later, he is no longer so certain. His most important plan — to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, in federal court in Manhattan — collapsed before it even began, after support from the public and local officials withered.

We thought that the decision to try Mr. Mohammed in a federal court was nothing but “political messaging.”

What other purpose is served? Certainly not justice.

Now Mr. Holder has switched from resisting what he had considered encroachment by White House political officials to seeking their guidance. Two weeks ago, he met with advisers there to discuss how to unite against common foes. They agreed to allow Mr. Holder, who has not appeared on a Sunday talk show since entering office, to speak out more; he agreed to let them help hone his message.

Whatever happened to just telling the truth? You don’t have to hone the truth.

The political attacks over terrorism cases were “starting to constrain my ability to function as attorney general,” he said in an interview last week. “I have to do a better job in explaining the decisions that I have made,” Mr. Holder also said, adding, “I have to be more forceful in advocating for why I believe these are trials that should be held on the civilian side.”

Mr. Holder has given plenty of interviews about his decision. And he delivered a very lengthy explanation to Congress last week.

Once again, the ‘dumb masses’ don’t oppose his position because they don’t understand it. They oppose it because they do understand it.

But now Mr. Holder is in the awkward position of pushing for an approach that he acknowledges he would accept defeat on. The administration hopes to announce a new venue for the Sept. 11 trial within three weeks, he said last Tuesday. But Congress could pass legislation requiring that Mr. Mohammed be tried by a military commission, or Mr. Obama himself could change direction.

“You always have to be flexible,” Mr. Holder said, allowing that justice could be served in a commission trial, too, and praising generals who “adapt their game plans” as the situation changes

The rest of this New York Times lengthy article is just a meandering attempt to defend the decisions of this woefully incompetent lackey.

But there you have it. Suddenly there is nothing wrong with military tribunals.

In fact, they’re great – when Democrats do them.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, February 15th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Holder Is Flexible About Military Tribunals”

  1. JohnMG says:

    …..”And yet Mr. Biden is allowed to go about on his own recognizance…..”

    I’m tellin’ ya Steve. Biden is Obama’s life insurance policy, and we’re paying for it.

    As for Holder, I don’t think he’s as stupid as it seems . What it does appear like to me is that he’s (Holder) getting tired of carrying out the intentions of Obama and being publicly harpooned for it as they being his own ideas. I look for him to leave before too long.

    We’ll get the same-ol’ same-ol’ crap about all administrations making staff changes after the first year, but I think Holder’s pushing back a bit, and Obama will throw him under the bus just as he has done others.

    But the public won’t see Obama’s fingerprints on the move anywhere. Mr. Holder will just “have decided to move on to other things” a la Patrick Kennedy, etc.

  2. proreason says:

    tick tick tick

    But really, shouldn’t we be more realistic about Mr Holders capabilities?

    We are holding him to a standard that may be impossible for him to meet…..intelligence, good judgement, love of country, commom sense, tolerance, recognition of evil, knowledge of and allegiance to the Constitution, appreciation of US history, knowledge of the law.

    None of those behaviours or knowledge levels are required for admittance to or taught in affirmative action exploitation classes. Indeed, they would seem to be disqualifiers to acquire the re-distribution benefits of affirmative action.

    • Right of the People says:


      All of that would be fine if he were truly interested in doing the job. Instead he revealed his true agenda last year when he made the “cowards about race” statement then reinforced it when he dropped the charges against the Black Panthers showing Whitey what a black man could do when given power.

      The sooner we’re rid of these vermin the sooner we can put this country back on course.

  3. DANEgerus says:

    The entire point of moving a select few of the terror trials to NY was to create a showcase for the terrorists to attack Bush/Cheney with only Holder allowed to defend Bush/Cheney policies.

    After Cheney’s beatdowns of Holder/Obama, twice previously and now this weekend, it doesn’t appear that anyone but the hard corps lefties are fooled.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »