CIA investigation will be Obama’s Waterloo

A political debacle is brewing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with the unleashing of Attorney General Eric Holder onto the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to review and prosecute the actions taken over the past 8 years. President Obama has stated several times that we need to look forward and not dwell on the past but by giving Attorney General Holder the nod to investigate and prosecute the CIA and Bush Administration national security policies is an hypocritical. Back in June of this year Holder was quoted as "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."

Armed with the release of the CIA's inspector general 2004 report, Attorney General Holder appointed John Durham as federal prosecutor to re-open the cases that found only one abuse of detainees by career prosecutors and not Bush appointees. As CIA director Leon Panetta pointed out that all cases were "carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not." What benefit will America see from the re-opening of these cases? The Obama Administration is succumbing to the political left by green lighting the attack on the CIA.

President Obama started off his speech to the CIA, in April, with "It is a great honor to be here with the men and women of the CIA. I've been eager to come out here to Langley for some time so I can deliver a simple message to you in person, on behalf of the American people: Thank you. Thank you for all the work that you do to protect the American people and the freedom that we all cherish" while closing with "And you will have my support and appreciation as you carry on this critical work. We live in dangerous times – I am going to need you more then ever." Well Mr. President if your words are true then why is the Attorney General Holder reviewing cases that were already put to rest? The potential further prosecution by the Attorney General's office only weakens the CIA and our national security.

Some in Congress thought that the Health Care debate will be President Obama's Waterloo. The Waterloo for the Obama Administration is Attorney General Holder's nod to review the CIA practices of the past 8 years. Former Vice President summed it up on Fox News Sunday when he said, "I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration." Rumors are surfacing that CIA Director Leon Panetta will be resigning or canned before the end of the year. Regardless of the criticism made prior to Leon Panetta being appointed CIA Director, the move by the Obama Administration to reverse their stance of not prosecuting CIA operatives will weaken the CIA operative's future attempts to gather intelligence.

President Obama, once again, shows his lack of foreign policy understanding. The about face is an attempt to quench the thirst by the political left that have demanded Bush and Cheney be held accountable for actions afforded the CIA operatives to extract intelligence from Gitmo detainees post 9/11. Once again Mr. President, what benefit will Americans realized from re-opening the cases that career prosecutors have already decided on?

Who is lying: Pelosi or CIA?

House Speaker Pelosi just needs to shut up. In her press conference last week she made the claim that the CIA “misled” her in September of 2002 and was not told that water boarding was being done, especially on Abu Zubaydah. Friday, after Speaker Pelosi’s grandstand, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated, “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that have been employed’”.

According the law of the land, it is a crime to lie or mislead Congress. If this is the case, why is it okay then for Speaker Pelosi is able to stand there and lie to the American Public? The surprising message being lost here is the lack of defense of Speaker Pelosi by the White House. Why might this be?

Perhaps it is because the CIA did let Congress know of the techniques being used to ferret out information. On CNN’s State of the Union, Rep. John Boehner said, “If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that is not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

As I am writing a promo came on MSNBC for Hardball. Chris Matthews’s teaser put forth the question if the Republican Party is using the Pelosi CIA attack as a distraction to Bush era policy. Now, I understand that Chris Matthews is a commentary but many people in our realm feel he is a news reporter. Why doesn’t the liberal media focus on Pelosi’s retort to CIA Panetta’s charge that she was given full disclosure?

Speaker Pelosi shifted her focus from the CIA to the Bush administration when she put out the statement last Friday, “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.” Really? Is Speaker Pelosi for real? As it has been reported, she first claimed that she was never briefed only to later soften her stance then to an outright blast of the CIA.

It was the role of the CIA to inform Congress of the techniques used, which according to CIA Panetta was done in September 2002. I would love to see a truth commission as it will bring to light to truth. My only concern is if the media will report the facts and not add their bias.