Isn't it rich that the White House is accusing Attorney General Eric

 

Holder's critics of being "partisans who seem more interested in launching

political attacks than cooperating with him to protect the security and

constitutional rights of the American people"?

     Partisan? Launching political attacks?  Well, if the White House and Holder

 

were not so partisan and attack-oriented themselves, we wouldn't be having this

discussion about Holder,  the IRS or  the AP.

     Indeed, politics, partisanship and self-interest dominate the thinking of

 

this White House to the detriment of the national interest. The New York Times

is reporting that "some in the West Wing privately tell associates they wish

(Holder) would step down, viewing him as politically maladroit.  But the latest

attacks may stiffen the administration's resistance in the near term to a

change for fear of emboldening critics."

     Study that quote -- both sentences.  The stated reason some in the White

 

House want Holder to go is not because he has engaged in corruption or lied to

Congress or any other of the myriad complaints that have been lodged against

him, but because they see him as politically maladroit [awkward, inept].  It's

all about politics and appearances and how those affect the administration -- 

not the nation.

     But in the second sentence we learn that the White House will probably keep

 

Holder because it believes dumping him would empower its critics. Again, the

determining factors are not Holder's integrity, the rule of law, the importance

of the nation's chief attorney adhering to the principle of equal protection

under the laws, or anything else involving the national interest. It's all about 

President Obama and his image and agenda, and Republicans are not to be

seen as scoring any victories.

     Who did they say was being partisan and political?

     The Times reveals another important reason that Holder has been so secure

 

in his position: "His saving grace through years of controversies has been

the friendship of two women close to Mr. Obama" -- top presidential adviser

Valerie Jarrett and first lady Michelle Obama.

     Jarrett provided some insight into how the administration is viewing these

 

scandals and the pressure for Holder to resign.

     In a recent interview, she left no doubt that the administration evaluates

these scandals in terms of how they are affecting the administration, not on

whether the charges have merit.

     Jarrett was quick to point out that the administration's mood is "very upbeat." 

That's swell.  But what about the scandals?

     Scandals?  According to Jarrett, "In any given day, our administration has about

 

2 million employees, and things happen. We put in process procedures to make

sure if there has been any wrongdoing, there will be appropriate consequences,

and we will move on."

     She's not just saying humbly and contritely, "Please trust us," which would

 

be bad enough.  Rather, "How dare anyone suggest there could be any corruption

inside this White House? But even if there is, don't you peons understand that

we have an agenda to move forward and don't need to be distracted by this? We

are about fundamentally changing the United States and are not to be deterred

by such trifles."

     You think I'm taking liberties here? Hardly. She said, "We have every

 

confidence that people within the White House have behaved appropriately.

People all around the country are counting on us not to be distracted or bogged

down by this."

     You got that? As an American citizen, you are not to concern yourself with

 

executive branch corruption, even when it goes to the very core of our

liberties: the federal government's targeting of political opponents and of the

press. Your priority should be to join the administration in moving its agenda

forward.

     Holder, for his part, reflects this same me-directed attitude. He invited

 

reporters to an unprecedented "off-the-record" meeting to discuss allegations

about the Justice Department's attack on the press. Even those few media

outlets that didn't boycott the meeting implied there was no justification for

the secrecy. No, but it apparently served Holder's and the administration's

interests; the national interest be damned.

     Further, the Times reports that Holder has an additional and personal

 

reason for not wanting to resign, not yet at least: "He wants to participate in

this month's 50th anniversary commemoration of the integration of the

University of Alabama by two black students."

     With this pervasive attitude of staggering arrogance and self-absorption in the 

 

administration, is it any wonder these scandals occurred in the first place? 

Should it be any surprise that Holder is indignant when asked to respond to 

legitimate questions from congressmen?

     We are witnessing a group of Chicago politicians, transplanted to Washington, 

 

who believe they are above the law and whose personal and political

agendas trump all else. And the longer they get away with it the worse they

will get. They must be stopped.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For free Politically Incorrect news ignored by the American news media,

 

send your friends' email addresses for REAL NEWS from thenewsman@ij.net.

To cancel your free REAL NEWS, click "reply" and type "stop messages".

 

 

• Obama
• Go Back

Related in this Category