The Washington Post, the newspaper who’s relentless pursuit of the truth behind the Watergate Scandal, is now witness to another scandal and government cover-up. However, the approach the newspaper has adopted towards the Fast and Furious scandal is dramatically different. A lot has happened in the past forty years, and the face of modern journalism is one of partisan propaganda. While The Washington Post had a tremendous opportunity to demand accountability from a stonewalling government official, just as they once did, the Post, instead, opted to function less as a newspaper and more as a bulletin board for the spin and crybaby antics of a falling attorney general who has blood on his hands.
Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder sat down with Sari Horwitz to discuss his role in the Fast and Furious scandal and his thoughts on being held in contempt of Congress the preceding Thursday. As has become typical of the arrogant attorney general, he did not express remorse for his participation in this debacle that, even with the most forgiving of interpretations, can be seen to be a supreme negligence that caused the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and fueled violence on both sides of the border.
The article is a fluff piece which functions as a bulletin board for Holder’s lies. Far from any reputable piece of journalism, the cozy piece paints Holder as some poor martyr, victimized and thoroughly confused by the accusations being leveled against him. It is indefensible that a major newspaper like The Washington Post, who is most famous for having climbed up the ladder of the Nixon administration to find who knew what and when, would be so content with functioning as a mouthpiece for a criminal like Holder.
The liberal slant starts almost immediately:
“The attorney general has long been a lightning rod for Republican lawmakers’ anger toward the Obama administration. But Holder said the debate over documents related to the gun operation, known as ‘Fast and Furious’ — along with the National Rifle Association’s attempts to make it an electoral issue — have made matters worse.”
Holder serves as a “lightning rod” for Republican lawmakers because he is the head of a Justice Department that, seemingly, has zero interest in promoting justice and has a vast interest in self-advancement through activist politics. It is absolutely true that Holder has not won favor with the right prior to his criminal actions in the Fast and Furious operation and the scandal afterward. However, that has more to do with his unwillingness to enforce legislatively enacted laws, his complicity in promoting voter fraud by blocking state voter I.D. laws and his unwillingness to prosecute Black Panthers guilty of voter intimidation.
Horwitz’s article serves as a bully pulpit for Holder to posture as a victim of a vendetta by the GOP. He claims,
“I’ve become a symbol of what they don’t like about the positions this Justice Department has taken. I am also a proxy for the president in an election year. You have to be exceedingly naive to think that vote was about . . . documents.”
While Holder is right in that many are, rightfully, outraged at the cherry-picking of liberal causes the Justice Department chooses to pursue, it has nothing to do with the calls for documents from an administration that promised “transparency”. Furthermore, the article claims that despite the turning over of over 7,600 documents to Congress, it does not address the refusal of Holder to release documents that would shed real light on the scandal and answer the question most integral to any investigation of a cover-up, “Who knew what and when?”
But it makes sense that Holder would not want to relinquish documents. Doing so has not worked out well for him in the past.
On May 3rd, 2011, Holder claimed to Congress, under oath, that he had not heard about Operation Fast and Furious prior to the previous few weeks. However, documents obtained by Congress clearly show that he was receiving briefings on the operation as early as July 5th, 2010. Even with the most gracious of interpretation of what “the last few weeks” could be, we can all agree that representing to Congress, under oath, that he was a “babe in the woods” and had no prior knowledge of this operation until confronted with accusations is outright, unadulterated perjury. It is the kind of act that gets people thrown in jail. It is the kind of “caught red-handed” situation that brought down bigger and bigger fish until Nixon left office in disgrace.
After lamenting the state of politics in Washington and absurdly claiming that he is the victim of “personal attacks”, Holder claimed that he had no intention of stepping down as attorney general. Apparently quite delusional, Holder then went on to claim that his legacy will be a positive one.
“This seems large in the moment, but the question is, how will this be viewed one year from now, five years from now? My bet will be that people are going to remember the stands I took to prevent the disenfranchisement of millions of people, the position I stood for in not defending the Defense of Marriage Act, what we did in protecting the American people, the numbers of people we put in jail and the [terrorist] plots we disrupted.”
Despite every possible attempt by the Justice Department, the Obama administration and the lap-dogs of the mainstream liberal media, this scandal is simply not going away. No, Holder’s tenure at the justice department will not be remembered fondly. Rife with scandal and treason, Holder’s Justice Department has become the embodiment of what is wrong with the Obama administration.
There are two outrages to be found in Horwitz’s article; it is outrageous that Holder has been caught red-handed and still, with the audacity and hubris found only in the untouchables of Pre-revolution French aristocracy, attempts to defend his actions by lobbying counter-accusations against Congress of a political witch hunt.
The second outrage to be found in the article is Horwitz’s tacit complicity in Holder’s cover-up by serving as a conduit for his lies. Evidently far more interested in political spin than journalism, Horwitz should feel ashamed of having missed an opportunity to press for answers. Especially given the history of The Washington Post’s willingness to uncover the truth behind a political cover-up, it is maddening that Horwitz and her editors are willing to mortgage journalistic integrity for the sake of a political agenda and convenience.
More than merely an operation gone bad, Operation Fast and Furious, from its earliest beginnings, has the markings of a false flag operation, designed to scapegoat the American gun owner and dealer in order to secure stricter gun control legislation. While violence erupted on both sides of the border, it was the Justice Department calling for stricter gun control legislation and blaming the reviled “gun culture” while fostering said violence. Throughout all of this, the scariest thing is that it all might have worked if Brian Terry hadn’t been murdered and the alternative media had not been so relentless in the pursuit of justice (a hat tip to Katie Pavlich at townhall.com).
While Holder boldly sticks to his guns, he should note that Nixon did similarly, and he should ask himself, “How did that work out for him?” With any luck and the continued efforts of Congress and those in the alternative media, hopefully we can one day see Holder in an orange jumpsuit, and Obama leaving his post as president, whilst giving a peace sign and entering a helicopter. But, this time, we shouldn’t expect any help from The Washington Post.