Peter King: If Obama Wasn't Told...

I must object to this.

It's a standard trope of argument to take an opponent's statement -- even if it doesn't seem true -- as true, and then make arguments based on that.

In this case, Peter King is saying if it's true the FBI and Eric Holder never told Obama that Petraeus was compromised, that speaks poorly of them.

This is often a useful form of argument.

But not here. I realize people don't feel comfortable lodging the term "liar" at every step but it must be said here.

It is simply untrue that Holder and Mueller didn't tell Obama. I do not need a cite for this. It is simply impossible to imagine otherwise.

What did everyone here do when they first read this? Why, you probably told someone else. It's juicy, it's interesting. It's both cloak-and-dagger and slap-and-tickle. It's also, of course, important.

Most sex scandals are not truly important. This one is.

So Holder and Mueller had official reasons for telling Obama that Petraeus was compromised. They also had unofficial reasons-- it's an interesting bit of dirt on someone once touted as a possible Republican presidential candidate (and then later as a possible vice presidential candidate).

But the story they're putting out is that they ignored both the requirements of their positions as top advisers (officially, they were required to tell the chief foreign policy and national security executive in the country) and also ignored the purely human urge to tell tales out of school?

It's not plausible, it's not credible. It's a lie. Plain and simple. Let's not dance around with the if they're telling the truth... formulation in this case. They're not telling the truth. There is no need to entertain a possibility if it's not a possibility.

They're lying, and they're obviously lying, and they're lying in a patently ridiculous way.

The only question is, Why are they lying?

posted by Ace at 01:47 PM

| Access Comments