Holder Can’t Say “Radical Islam”

If the intent of  Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday was to find out just how far members of the Obama Administration would go to follow their edict that Islamic terrorists should not be called… Islamic terrorists, then he got his answer.

Awfully darn far.

Smith asked Holder if he thought the common denominator between the Ft. Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber was that they had ties to “Radical Islam.”

Holder acted as though he had never heard the term before, then did remarkable, though awkward, verbal calisthenics to avoid using the term– or even agreeing with someone who did.

“There are a variety of reasons,” was his oft used phrase, as to why “individuals” act in this way, Holder asserted.

Right, let’s see, what was the common denominator in the above 3 incidents?

Maybe, knowing that Major Nidal Malik Hassan of Ft. Hood infamy lived in an apartment, Holder is checking to see if his house was foreclosed on, too.  Maybe that is the pattern.

Perhaps the United States should implement a policy of home-equity profiling!

Holder insisted that Islam “the religion” was not the problem, that a false “interpretation” of Islam might be a factor.

So, the nations top lawyer, who couldn’t be bothered to read the Arizona immigration law before casting doubt on its constitutionality, is now an expert in comparative religions.

Maybe here’s the question Congressman Smith should have asked Eric Holder: ”Attorney General Holder, how many of the terrorists you and your law firm worked pro bono to have freed from Gitmo were motivated by Radical Islam.  Surely you can use your first-hand experience to answer that…?”

  • Syd Barrett

    David, I really wish these congressmen would ping you first to find out what questions to ask before the opportunity is gone.

    I also don't know why they don't say more often, "Would you please just stop droning and answer the question?"

    Better yet, ask yes/no answers only. When no yes or no is forthcoming, just say, "Please answer the question, yes or no."

    I also don't understand the fact that a good many of our congressmen are current or past lawyers, and they surely have this sort of contentious questioning in a court of law. Why do they have to tiptoe around guys like Holder? He's just an employee – a member of the staff – and is subject to questioning by his employers.

  • chris jones

    That's really something, isn't it, right out in the open like that. This guy is working for the Muslims and for some reason we all just have to sit there and take it! This guy will defend Isam to the death and he's what?…Attorney General. Wouldn't it be a riot if his boss turned out to be a full-fledged Saudi operative, cultivated from an early age for his attractiveness to white people, his facility with lying, and his radical views. Wouldn't that be a freakin' riot?