Contempt Vote Tomorrow

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Last week the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23 to 17 (down party lines) to hold to hold US Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for attempting to Obstruct thier ivestigation into the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was killed by a rifle registered to the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

It has since been revealed that BATFE Agents along the Arizona/Mexico Border had been providing weapons to the Signolla Drug Cartel. I posted about the story when initially broke here.

Holder initially denied any knowledge of of the policy, and later defended it as simply the continuation of a Bush-era program called "Operation Wide Reciever". He has since withdrawn those statements. Holder has not yet been formally held in contempt of Congress. The full House still needs to approve the resolution in order for that to happen. But President Obama has elected to support Holder by asserting executive privilege over the documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee.

This raises some interesting questions...

Actual lawyers feel free to corrct me, but as I understand it executive privilege allows the president to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal advisory opinions and recommendations by which governmental policies are formulated. By invoking executive privilege Obama and Holder are essentially admitting that "allowing" guns into Mexico was a policy descision.

Cynics have theorized that this was an effort to justify increased Gun-Control and Federal intervention in southern states. Others see it as simply stupidity and negligence. But what the question I find truly fascinating is "Why has the Obama adminisration chosen to make a stand here?"

I've been expecting Holder to get the boot for a couple of years now but it still hasn't happened. Historically Obama has been willing to sever ties with people who's association has become a liability. Holder is becoming a massive target for the Right and seems to rate an indifferent shrug from the left, so why protect him?

I have a few theories which (in order of increasing cynicism) are...

1: Holder and Obama are friends and Obama is genuinely prepared to risk his own reputation to protect him.

2: Obama doesn't think the charges will stick and sees this as an opprotunity to fuck over a Republican-lead investigation.

3: In relation to #3 Obama and Holder have bought into thier own hype and actually believe that nobody cares about violence in Mexico, they just hate black people.

4: The subpoenaed documents include information that could implicate Obama in wrong doing.

5: Holder has dirt on Obama and is blackmailing him.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You mean the al queda that wasn't in Iraq before we invaded?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so because al qaeda chose to go to iraq to blow up a bunch of civilians, they are exempt from all responsibility for their killings. that is some tremendous logic there.

i assume you also blame the al qaeda bombings in syria on the popular uprising?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Defensive much? All I pointed out was that al queda wasn't in Iraq until we started fucking the place up. So yes, we have some responsibility for what comes after. The Pentagon doesn't track civilian casualties, so the 200,000 number is a low-end estimate of "collateral damage" deaths from bombing campaigns, etc.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Defensive much?

just pointing out the facts. and no, the 200,000 number is not a low end estimate of "collareral damage" (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/).

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The methodologies used guarantee low estimates because of verification requirements. But let's say the civilian death toll is ONLY 114,000 - what's your point?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

my point is that blaming bush for massacres carried out by al qaeda in iraq is intellectually dishonest.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

How many people were killed by al queda in Iraq?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

No, al qaeda is not exempted and neither are we. They followed our cue's, so to speak.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

i have no problem taking responsibility for the people we actually killed. just not those killed in al qaeda's war on everyone.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I agree. But then again, we were responsible for security.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

which would have been a lot easier without the suicide brigade.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

which is why occupation is a heavy burden.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

What about the sectarian killings and the various militias that sprung up? Do you really think al-Qaeda was responsible for all the violence in that country?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

never said they were. they were certainly a major player in the carnage, but yes, third party militias have blood on their hands as well.