Rush Holt is a Threat to National Security

By Fred Lehlbach
Remember water boarding? And the hot water that Nancy Pelosi got into over her initial denial of being briefed about it, and then her admission she was briefed, and then her dissembling on the subject? It was only a little more than a year ago that it was the talk of the town. Unclassified documents reveal that Nancy Pelosi was briefed about “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs, one of which is water boarding) as early as September 4, 2002, and kept her mouth shut about it until the White House changed hands.

Nancy was then caught in a trap, as it became clear that she had been briefed, and she had to back up and indicate that perhaps Congress had been “mislead” about the use of EITs.

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, and a fellow Democrat, was ultimately required to issue a statement on May 15, 2009 that said: “It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and values”.

End of story? Not quite.

While many of us realize what a threat to national security Nancy Pelosi is, many don’t realize that Rush the Junior is every bit a threat, and perhaps even guilty of treason.

As can be seen from the unclassified document found in the PDF attached, Rush Holt, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, (HPSCI) was briefed on EITs and water boarding as early as September 6, 2006. He also waited until the White House changed hands to object, and even declared, when the Justice Department memos justifying the use of EITs came out in April of 2009, that those memos “didn’t hold up to common sense and common decency.”

So, Rush the Junior, why did it take 2 ½ years to decide that EITs didn’t hold up to common decency?

Rush the Junior only made it worse when the most radical of his fellow “Intelligence” (Oxymoron alert!) Committee members sent a letter to Panetta, holding up and contrasting his statement from May 15, wherein he said that it was not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress, with apparent testimony before the Committee on June 24, wherein he is alleged to have said that “top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress and mislead Members for a number of years.” The letter demanded a public correction of the statement of May 15, 2009. See the letter from Rush the Junior, and his fellow radicals as part of this attached PDF.

The problem is, the testimony referred to in the letter was from a closed briefing. Oops!

Holt the Junior et al took statements from a closed briefing, and used them as an opportunity to politically grandstand and hang the CIA out to dry. There was universal denial of the letter’s characterization of Panetta’s testimony, but that didn’t stop Rush and friends from claiming some sort of self-professed moral high ground.

Of course, no public correction from Panetta ever came.

The New York Times reported that they obtained the June 26th letter from Rush Holt, during an interview with him.

At about the same time, there was another leak disclosing the “Executive Assassination Program”, a never-initiated CIA program to eliminate high placed terrorist leaders and others. It has been widely speculated that Panetta’s testimony about this program was that he had only just learned about it, and it was never operational, therefore Congress had never been briefed about it.

Who disclosed the top-secret, classified, non-operational assassination program?

Guess who makes the short list?

I submit the six names that appear on the June 26th letter are your short list for leaking the classified program from the closed briefing. Obviously, Rush Holt is on that list.

I submit that Rush Holt supplied the letter to the New York Times on July 8, 2009, and granted an interview to them in connection with the letter. After all, the paper of record said so.

I submit that the first media allegation that the Panetta testimony was about the “Executive Assassination Program” came in the Huffington Post on July 9, 2010.

I submit that Rush Holt has a long and friendly relationship with the ultra-liberal HuffPo, having authored no less than seven or eight Op-Ed pieces over the past three years, and being quoted or interviewed dozens of times. Sam Stein, the author of the piece published on July 9, 2009 has a particularly close tie to Rush, having quoted or interviewed him five times in the past two years.

I submit that Rush Holt has it in for the CIA, and has for years. He has called for a renewed “Church Committee” to investigate the CIA from top to bottom. He is just the type of bleeding heart that is appalled by the need for covert ops to keep America safe.

Justice Department investigations and Congressional inquiries have been initiated on less evidence.