Breaking on Drudge - OBAMA JUSTICE: PROSECUTOR TO PROBE 'CIA ABUSE'

Drudge ^ | Aug 9, 2009 | Drudge

[VRWCTexan]

Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees by Eric Holder is expected

[anniegetyourgun]

Not related to anything other than “we won” attitude. These people don’t give a damn what the people want or think....they will do whatever they please, because they can.

[teg_76]

If anybody in Oregon knows of a legal, non-racist, constitutional militia let me know because I would like to join. I’ve had it.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

If you read the article it says it will never go anywhere.
Even though 0bama has attacked/verbally abused everything but his chicago mob ties, it is nothing but a distraction to appeal to his minority commie left wing hollyweird commie liberals.

The word SCUM is too nice when referring to 0bama.

[clintonh8r]

No doubt they’ll get 100% cooperation from The Schnozz....

[autumnraine]

Anonymous things harmful to Obama sent to the media equals IGNORE.

[bustinchops]

The purpose of this is to keep claimed transgressions of the Bush administration front and center in peoples’ minds so that the ostammer shell game “Don’t look here......look there” can continue. When things are going badly, change the subject back to somebody you can bash and ridicule with impunity, such as the CIA activities under the Bush administration. The media will definitely run with this because for them it will be like getting another big bite at Abu Ghraib. It will dominate the media and death care and cap ‘n hoax will quietly slip under the radar and be passed. With ostammer starting to tank, they have to do something to take the focus off him.

But one thing in our favor is that most people couldn’t care less what the CIA may have done to a bunch of terrorists tucked away in Cuba. The problem is that the media will just love it and therefore stop talking about what ostammer is doing on the sly and how things aren’t going so great for him.

[PLD]

Not the NYT or any paper like that.We still have FOX and some other papers that tell the truth..Heck we all know that NYT has always been for the down fall of America along with the commie networks like MSNBC..Believe me things are going places now if they weren't do you think that there would be so many people going to protest the death care bill..They do need documents to back up what they say..It can be done the democrats do it all the time with giving information to the NYT..

[G Larry]

Among the troops, the concept of taking prisoners is outlived its usefulness.

[AliVeritas]

That explains this no show:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2311757/posts

[submarinerswife]

How will he prosecute something that wasn’t illegal at the time? Did it ever become illegal?

How far back is he going to probe?

Will he name names, dates, places?

Will he take the words of terrorists if that is all the “proof” that he has?

Will he prosecute the military for water boarding pilots, special forces operators etc...during training?

[GeronL]

diversionary tactics. Probably told the RINO’s to let healthcare get through or they would hold the hearings or something. black mail? /pun

[autumnraine]

I don’t have faith in Fox anymore. Especially now that Murdoch has the brilliant idea to charge folks for content. How many will go to the free CNN or some other website for news?

And beyond that, Fox was singing the praises and hallelulahs Friday that the bad times were over and the economy is on the mend because the (miscalculated) unemployment figure was down by 1/10 of a percent! Woo Hoo, let’s this party started right!

[NordP]

One word:

DEFLECTION

Now...WHAT ARE YOU REALLY DOING THAT YOU DON'T WANT US TO SEE?????

Are you nervous about healthcare and thousands of American citizens protesting this horrible "take over" by the present American government??? Or...what else is it you're trying to pull, while we look the other way????

[GOPJ]

LOL - might just work fine...

[nathanbedford]

Posted last night in response to the original article:

There are some interesting aspects to this story consisting of leaks to the Los Angeles Times.

The story recites that "a small loan for a CIA officials have put off plans to retire... (to) be in a better position to defend against a justice investigation." The syntax does not make clear whether the CIA officials are aiming to defend the agency or to defend themselves. The distinction, I think, is important because it goes to the internecine guerrilla warfare which has been going on within the CIA for years now.

Originally, we saw a fifth column in operation against the Bush administration primarily over the rationale for the war in Iraq. The fifth column used newspapers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times to leak material damaging to the Bush administration.

Then we saw this mess in the CIA take a new turn with the scuffle between the agency and Speaker of the House. Was this the right wing in the CIA striking back or was it more likely merely a time honored example of bureaucrats circling the wagons and protecting their own? Since it was CIA director Leon Panetta, a certified liberal apparatchik, who personally called Nancy Pelosi,in effect, a liar, I assume it was the CIA protecting its own. In other words, I see no signs that the CIA has recovered its footing and is now acting as a patriotic organization. In the absence of proof, I assume that the CIA, like the State Department, has been largely infiltrated by the left wing.

The fact that the story was leaked to the Los Angeles Times indicates that the operatives who are were staying at the CIA were doing so to defend themselves rather than the organization itself. Hence, if that is the case, the CIA does not pose a parallel fifth column threat on the right against the administration. If there is no threat, there is no need to root out a fifth column to protect the administration.

So I see no reason to believe that the CIA poses a threat to the Obama administration. Why then, does the administration seem to be proceeding with a very dubious and potentially politically damaging prosecution against the organization or at least against covert agents within the organization? Is it that the Marxism in Obama is on automatic pilot and they simply cannot refrain from prosecuting an enemy from decades ago? I hardly think so. Is it a sop to the base? In other words, is this article nothing more than a red herring floated to mollify the base that the administration is actually doing something against the CIA or, more precisely put, against the CIA operatives who cooperated with the Bush administration? Or, is there a broader political objective in mind?

Within days of this story being leaked to a left-wing newspaper which has shown itself to be utterly sold out to the Obama administration, the administration announced that it was, in effect, declaring an end to the war on terrorism not by defeating the enemy but simply by defining them out of existence. What is going on here? Is not the Obama administration leaving itself exposed in the event of a terrorist strike on the homeland to charges of criminal naïveté? Why take the chance? Again, one must ask, is Obama's Marxism simply on automatic pilot, or is there something else afoot?

Taken together, these stories leave the administration extremely vulnerable in the event of a terrorist strike to charges that they have turned their back on the threat of terrorism for ideological reasons and that they are not competent to defend the country. Surely the administration could not be so confident in its ability to fend off a terrorist strike that it would court such a politically disastrous event. What is going on?

I do not profess to have any insights I merely seek to open the question for comments.

[Erik Latranyi]

The Obama Administration turns a blind eye to terrorists, domestic and foreign, while using the power of the federal government to investigate political opponents.

[mcshot]

The CIA might just do more investigations if they are jacked around. I think they could play a major role in preventing the Oman from screwing with their mission. Could be serious stuff.

[Typical_Whitey]

I see but isn’t the AG supposed to uphold our laws. Has he opened a special investigation into the FISHY White House blatantly breaking the law by collecting data on citizens questioning Obama’s health care plans?

Oh maybe its a Bro thing.

[AliVeritas]

[VRWCTexan]

Thanks - excellent questions - especially the link to obama defining the WoT out of existence