Rove: Obama “cowardly” on DoJ and CIA interrogators

posted at 5:10 pm on August 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Karl Rove erupted on the Fox’s Tom Sullivan Show today when discussing the push by the Department of Justice for potential prosecutions of CIA interrogators for their actions in handling al-Qaeda detainees.  He didn’t mince any words, calling Barack Obama “cowardly” for ducking responsibility for the decision to press forward with investigations despite promises from Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that the administration wanted to “look forward”:

ROVE: I will tell you though I’m just furious about what attorney general Eric Holder did in naming a special prosecutor to go after the CIA for its use of enhanced interrogation techniques. These techniques were adopted only after the CIA consulted with the defense department with outside experts and the Justice Department about the standards, received legal guidance from the Justice Department authorizing their use, and they operated within that framework – five years ago there was a review of those methods. They found that in one instance the methods had been violated and abused and that person was prosecuted. This is now a second investigation – we are going to regret the moment when we told the CIA that if you have a high value target you run the risk of 5 years, 10 years down the line of being prosecuted for abiding by the legal advice you were given by the Justice Department. If you’re a smart CIA agent today, you’re not looking to be on the front line of the war on terror. You’re hoping you’ll get assigned to New Zealand or you’re going to have that assignment to Luxemburg rather than going to a place where you’ll come into contact with unsavory people, because at some point you could be sanctioned for doing your job protecting this country. This is just cowardly of the President of the United States to surrender this responsibility to Holder. It is irresponsible on the part of the Attorney General to do this. It hits at the security of the United States of America at a time when we‘re at war, and I just can’t see straight I’m just so spitting angry about it.

SULLIVAN: Its obvious that the President is shirking it by saying “It’s the attorney general, I have no say”, and the attorney general is saying “I have no say”…

ROVE: The attorney general works for him! He needs to be circumspect about it, but if he believes he is irresponsible to do this, which he said on several occasions that he wants to look forward not back, then he ought to step in and he should have told Holder “don’t do this.” And if Holder didn’t agree with him he had the ability to resign.

SULLIVAN: Even Holder said, “I don’t want to do this,” and now he’s turning around and using the special prosecutor card.

ROVE: Well and that’s another thing, rather than taking responsibility upon his own shoulders and saying there will be a Justice Department investigation led by people that I name who will be responsible to me, he’s putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor so he can wash his hands of it and not be held responsible for it. Again I do not use the word “cowardly” loosely, I use it advisedly, but this is cowardly on both the part of the White House and on the part of Attorney General Holder and its irresponsible o the part of both.

I think Rove is right on both counts, but especially with Holder. Barack Obama can argue that the White House should not be ordering an AG to pursue or stop an investigation, which would on its own look like political interference in what should be a non-political process.   That may not be a very courageous position to take, but it has some basis in philosophy of executive non-interference in prosecutions.

However, the special prosecutor route is indeed a cowardly dodge, one which shows that Holder is very aware of the political risks of his decision.  If Holder wants to pursue investigations, then let Holder be responsible for their outcomes.  Special prosecutors are unaccountable and usually go off on wild tangents, creating a lot more political damage than actual enlightenment.

Update: Here’s the direct link to Sullivan’s show.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

fourdeucer:

Everything they do is fishy…but thus far I don’t see the Republicans caving on this.

I saw this at WSJ, it is an interesting oped:

The two CIA papers don’t discuss enhanced interrogation, though the IG report suggests that KSM provided little of this information prior to his waterboarding. Some will argue that these details could have been elicited without enhanced techniques. We’ll never know. The question is whether Attorney General Eric Holder and his new special counsel intend to second-guess the decisions of CIA officials who were operating in the shadow of 9/11 and who, we now know, successfully unraveled terror plots and saved lives.
***

Which brings us to another salient part of the IG report: CIA officials well understood that they might be second-guessed years later by politicians. “During the course of this review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation. . . . officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities . . . they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them.” Another said, “Ten years from now we’re going to be sorry we’re doing this . . . [but] it has to be done.”

The outrage here isn’t that government officials used sometimes rough interrogation methods to break our enemies. The outrage is that, years later, when the political winds have shifted and there hasn’t been another attack, our politicians would punish the men and women who did their best to protect Americans in a time of peril.

Terrye on August 27, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Terrye on August 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM

……fearing that I’m right, while hoping I’m wrong.

try again later on August 27, 2009 at 8:12 PM

After his “nation of cowards” blunder you can be sure Holder doesn’t fart without WH authorization.

The Obama crew has been keeping this card up their sleeves for the day they needed some chaos to distract from other problems. Cap and tax is dead, so is Obamacare, he is tanking in the polls, and he just dropped a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR budget “error” on taxpayers’ doorsteps on Friday afternoon. Then he takes off to hide out on Martha’s Vineyard for a couple of weeks. No crisis coming conveniently to hand for exploitation, they simply heat up a pre-cooked controversy to distract attention from the harsh realities of failure.

Of course the whole thing is designed to inflame the emotions of anyone who is paying attention, stoking the passions on both sides of the political spectrum while playing to his left-wing base. The fact that the whole thing is fabricated matters not. Obama has claimed he wants to look forward, not back, but simultaneously permits Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to RE-INVESTIGATE evidence reviewed by professionals years ago, which resulted in one prosecution. None of that evidence has changed. Of course, the notion that Obama “can’t” tell Holder not to do so is simply preposterous. He can, and the prior investigation, which no one has ever credibly suggested was inadequate, is the best possible reason to do so.

But O needs this distraction. The O crew is fully prepared to do serious and lasting damage to our national security and the agency best able to deal with international terrorists who have murdered thousands of Americans all to play a petty game for a perceived political advantage, and a fleeting one at that.

novaculus on August 27, 2009 at 8:20 PM

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.” – Lincoln

Kevin in Washington State on August 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM

try again:

Yeah, I know how that is.

Terrye on August 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM

What goes around comes around. The next administration might just decide an investigation is needed to look into voter fraud via ACORN and the Black Panthers etc. Why the hell not?

Terrye on August 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Did the war end ? I went to the latrine to throw up after watching Matthews and I guess I missed the ending . Will some one tell me who won ? I to get my furniture into the correct feng shui , if this means a lot of eastwardly prayer .

borntoraisehogs on August 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Hey Holder,

You frickin’ stupid idiot!

You wanna’ investigate somebody why don’t you start with TERRORIST BOMBER WILLIAM AYERS! Or maybe that skank broad wife of his that was so giddy and jubilant when Charles Manson, et. al., murdered a pregnant Sharon Tate.

THESE SCUM are the true enemies of the American ethic, NOT some underpaid, overworked CIA agent putting his/her life on the line to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!

You dropped the investigation of that crooked jackass FRAUD Richardson, but you’re pressing ahead to prosecute the very CIA agents that have worked since 9/11 to protect your sorry ass.

HOLDER, I’ve sid it before and I’ll say it again…

HOLDER, YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE FRICKIN’ MORON. HOW YOU GOT TO WHERE YOU ARE TODAY IS A REAL TESTAMENT TO THE FAILURE OF “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION”. YOU ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH AND WHEN CONSERVATIVES RETURN TO POWER, I’LL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE SURE A TRAITOR LIKE YOU IS NOT JUST PROSECUTED, BUT DRAWN AND QUARTERED, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DESERVE.

bannedbyhuffpo on August 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Well, you could honestly say that most of Obama’s mentors openly accuse the CIA of committing genocide against Blacks, so how could having him set about destroying the CIA be a surprise?

OxyCon on August 27, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Barack Obama can argue that the White House should not be ordering an AG to pursue or stop an investigation, which would on its own look like political interference in what should be a non-political process. That may not be a very courageous position to take, but it has some basis in philosophy of executive non-interference in prosecutions.

You’re too generous to accept this argument for even a moment. This is fundamentally a political decision, and that puts the blame directly back to the President.

By having Holder announce this after Obama goes on vacation and releasing a vague statement about “looking forward rather than looking back,” Obama is trying to pretend he has nothing to do with the investigations. I see no reason we should let him get away with ducking all responsibility.

didymus on August 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM

If Barack wasn’t so busy fasting he’d be all over Rove.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 28, 2009 at 1:07 AM

As far as I see, twice now, we’ve been cursed with presidents that hate the infrastructure resources of the US that protect the nation. Clinton was a well-known hater of the US armed forces, and didn’t seem to be any friend of any other member of the IC (Intelligence Community), either, unless they were working directly on projects he assigned. Obama is just as big a coward as Clinton, and I fully agree with Karl Rove. He is no friend to the IC, he’s no friend to the DOD, and I really wish a better job had been made in showing this, during the election campaign. While I’m certainly no McCain booster, he’d be better than Obama. Obama was known as one of the most liberal petty bureaucrats in the United States, and when have you seen ‘the typical liberal bureaucrat’ be a friend to the USIC or USDOD? Never, in my experience.

Virus-X on August 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2