NEWT: ERIC HOLDER SHOULD BE FIRED

Eric Holder was instrumental in pardoning Marc Rich. He was instrumental in pardoning FALN terrorists to garner support from Hispanic voting blocks. It was on his watch as Deputy Attorney General under Clinton that two Weather Underground terrorists (Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg) were pardoned. His department recently dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who were caught on tape intimidating voters on election day.

Now he's going after the CIA.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is speaking loudly about it:

In the latest skirmish in the Democratic Party's war on the CIA, Attorney General Eric Holder has failed to uphold this fundamental public trust. And for that, there should be consequences.

Earlier this week, on the same day that the administration released a six-year-old report on terrorist interrogations, Holder announced he is appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA officials who conducted the interrogations.

Newt then boxes Obama in.

Obama has gotten to where he is by distancing himself from situations that can harm him politically. Holder going after the CIA is no difference. If Obama is against what Holder is doing to the CIA, Gingrich says he should fire Holder.

Even if you believe this convenient division of political culpability, the Attorney General has failed to honor the law. He has given into - or faithfully carried out - the revenge fantasies of the anti-American left.

If Obama won't uphold his fundamental duty as Commander-in-Chief to defend those who have been defending America, the least he can do is insist that his Attorney General uphold his fundamental duty to defend the rule of law.

If Holder and his senior team won't do the right thing and resign their positions, Obama should do the right thing and fire them.

Obama can't play these games as the President and Newt explains exactly why.

Read Newt's ENTIRE ARTICLE.

On another note, I'd like to make a somewhat unrelated observation based on another paragraph in Newt's piece:

We know from long experience, of course, that special prosecutors in Washington quickly become self-justifying. To rationalize their existence, they must find people to prosecute, and find they do.

This can be applied to the enemies we didn't identify after 9/11. Instead of doing so, we focused on "terrorists" and the DHS has been staffed with people that need to find people to go after. Now that the war on terror is an archaic phrase, who will they find?