Why the Dems don't want GOP investigations into the White House: Reason #507

Rick Moran
With the Democrats in deep denial over the real possibility that they will lose their House majority in November (and the lesser possibility they will lose the senate), one wonders why the bold front in the face of horrible poll numbers?

Perhaps it is because they can't face the possibility that a GOP House sweep would mean some serious investigations into wrongdoing in the Obama White House.

Choose your poison, as they say. The Republicans have a target rich environment in which their power of subpoena would have administration officials dancing a jig to stay out of the slammer. Or, in cases where laws have not been broken, reveal what everyone who isn't an Obamabot knows by now; our president is a liar.

Case in point, the release of the Lockerbie bomber and the reaction of the president who was "surprised, disappointed and angry" at the Scots for letting Abdel Baset al-Megrahi go back to Libya under a "compassionate release" subterfuge.

On Tuesday, Democratic senator Bob Menendez canceled hearings on the possibility that BP oil had a hand in Megrahi's release. As long as the Dems could bash BP a little more, they figured it would work to their political advantage. But the Sunday release of a letter from the Obama administration to the Scottish authorities that basically greenlighted the release of Megrahi caused a sudden change of heart on Capitol Hill. The Democrats have now lost all interest in getting to the bottom of the Megrahi affair.

Arthur Herman from the New York Post:

The real reason is that the probe might also have had to disclose what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder knew and when they knew it. That's because the London Times on Sunday published a letter written by deputy US ambassador Richard LeBaron in the days before Megrahi was set free, telling Scotland's first minister that, while the Obama administration opposed the terrorist bomber's release, it was nonetheless "far preferable" that he be sprung on compassionate grounds than be moved to a Libyan prison.At the very least, the letter undermines Obama's statement that he had been "surprised, disappointed and angry" by the release last August. It turns out that he knew all along and that his anger and disappointment didn't extend so far as to make a diplomatic big deal about it.

At the time, an outraged Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the release of the man convicted of murdering the 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 on grounds of "compassion" turned the meaning of the word on its head. It seems Obama was one of those doing the headstand.

Now that the Lockerbie hearings have been suspended, we may never get to the truth of what happened in those crucial days in mid-August or read the transcript that the White House is withholding of a conversation Holder had with his Scottish counterpart before the release.

That's unfortunate, because the truth would help us answer a more important question: How serious is this president about fighting and winning the War on Terror?

The Brits may have released Megrahi to facilitate an oil deal between BP and Libya. We certainly want to know if that was the case. But holding hearings on what the administration knew and when they knew it in this matter is crucial to understanding the nature of this White House. Their credibility is shot, and discovering how they tried to pull the wool over the American public's eyes while feigning incredulity at the release of a terrorist in which they were complicit would make for splendid television.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



With the Democrats in deep denial over the real possibility that they will lose their House majority in November (and the lesser possibility they will lose the senate), one wonders why the bold front in the face of horrible poll numbers?

Perhaps it is because they can't face the possibility that a GOP House sweep would mean some serious investigations into wrongdoing in the Obama White House.

Choose your poison, as they say. The Republicans have a target rich environment in which their power of subpoena would have administration officials dancing a jig to stay out of the slammer. Or, in cases where laws have not been broken, reveal what everyone who isn't an Obamabot knows by now; our president is a liar.

Case in point, the release of the Lockerbie bomber and the reaction of the president who was "surprised, disappointed and angry" at the Scots for letting Abdel Baset al-Megrahi go back to Libya under a "compassionate release" subterfuge.

On Tuesday, Democratic senator Bob Menendez canceled hearings on the possibility that BP oil had a hand in Megrahi's release. As long as the Dems could bash BP a little more, they figured it would work to their political advantage. But the Sunday release of a letter from the Obama administration to the Scottish authorities that basically greenlighted the release of Megrahi caused a sudden change of heart on Capitol Hill. The Democrats have now lost all interest in getting to the bottom of the Megrahi affair.

Arthur Herman from the New York Post:

The real reason is that the probe might also have had to disclose what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder knew and when they knew it. That's because the London Times on Sunday published a letter written by deputy US ambassador Richard LeBaron in the days before Megrahi was set free, telling Scotland's first minister that, while the Obama administration opposed the terrorist bomber's release, it was nonetheless "far preferable" that he be sprung on compassionate grounds than be moved to a Libyan prison.

At the very least, the letter undermines Obama's statement that he had been "surprised, disappointed and angry" by the release last August. It turns out that he knew all along and that his anger and disappointment didn't extend so far as to make a diplomatic big deal about it.

At the time, an outraged Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the release of the man convicted of murdering the 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 on grounds of "compassion" turned the meaning of the word on its head. It seems Obama was one of those doing the headstand.

Now that the Lockerbie hearings have been suspended, we may never get to the truth of what happened in those crucial days in mid-August or read the transcript that the White House is withholding of a conversation Holder had with his Scottish counterpart before the release.

That's unfortunate, because the truth would help us answer a more important question: How serious is this president about fighting and winning the War on Terror?

The Brits may have released Megrahi to facilitate an oil deal between BP and Libya. We certainly want to know if that was the case. But holding hearings on what the administration knew and when they knew it in this matter is crucial to understanding the nature of this White House. Their credibility is shot, and discovering how they tried to pull the wool over the American public's eyes while feigning incredulity at the release of a terrorist in which they were complicit would make for splendid television.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky