The title of this post is a quote from a new Afterburner by Bill Whittle. One of his best so far (link from Instapundit).
I was uncomfortable at first with people on the right who openly accused Eric Holder and Obama of sending thousands of high-power weapons to Mexican drug gains in order to create gun-control propaganda. Sure we all immediately suspected it, all of us who knew about Fast and Furious and who remembered Obama's early claims about violence in Mexico and his subsequent embarrassment over it.
Early in his administration, Obama was going around claiming that most of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico came from the US. He was saying this in order to argue that we have to bring back Clinton's "assault weapon" ban in order to protect innocent Mexicans from drug gangs. But the claim was false and was quickly exposed as false every time he or someone in his administration repeated it.
Then over the next year or so, the lie gradually became true, or at least more true. This is because the Justice Department forced American gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected Mexican gun runners, even when the gun dealers didn't want to --even when it was against the law to do so. The Justice Department didn't do this so they could arrest the gun runners with the illegal weapons; they just let the weapons go across the border. And they didn't even tell the Mexican government that they were arming violent criminals in Mexico.
The explanation for this outrageous action was that they wanted to "track" the guns by finding them at crime scenes. Think about that for a moment. You typically find guns at a crime scene after someone has been killed. So their plan was to get Mexicans killed so that they could "track" the guns. This alone should have been enough to get everyone involved fired and possibly have criminal charges brought against them.
And track the guns how? How would they know who left the guns at the gun scene? Maybe, this information would give them some vague data about connections within drug gangs, but was that really worth the deaths of hundreds of innocent people? This is just not a believable story. However finding those guns at crimes scenes gave them something else as well, it increased the numbers of guns found at Mexican crime scenes that came from the US.
So the Obama administration makes a false claim to advance a policy that they want. The claim is proven to be false. Then gradually the claim becomes true and it turns out that it is becoming true because of direct and quasi-legal actions by the Obama administration, actions that make no sense by their own explanations. Well, when the motivations they give you don't make sense then you start to look other motivations. We well know how many millions of people were murdered in the 20th century to support Leftist ideology, so we have reason to suspect that committed Leftist ideologues like Obama and Holder might not mind breaking a few eggs.
But still, you don't openly accuse someone of accessory to mass murder on the basis of suspicion. Not until that person has spent a year and half hiding documents from investigators, lying to congress and changing their story and then hiding more documents where they discussed changing their story. But that is what has been going on, so now I'm ready to openly say that I suspect Eric Holder did exactly that: I suspect that Eric Holder arranged for the murder of hundreds of innocent people in order to promote gun control. And now that Obama has used a claim of executive privilege to stifle the investigation of Eric Holder, I'm willing to say that I suspect Obama of being involved, either from the beginning, or after the fact as part of a cover up.
It's a terrible thing to say about someone and for the sake of national unity, I really wish I didn't have to say it. I know that a lot of Democrats will view this as just a partisan attack on a Democratic president. But look: hundreds of dead people. That has to have consequences, even if you are a partisan Democrat. If you hated Bush for killing innocent people in a war then what about a president who kills innocent people to create propaganda?
I also worry that like the Clinton impeachment, this investigation will cause people to rally around Obama and make his criminal behavior the thing that saves his presidency. That would be a terrible thing for the country, to have two Democrat presidents in a row see their popularity actually increase when they were caught in corruption (although Clinton's obstruction of justice is not comparable to Obama's accessory to murder). It would make future Democrat presidents feel that they could do anything and get away with it. And that way lies despotism.