Holder Cuts A Deal

A week ago, Eric Holder proclaimed loudly that "waterboarding is torture" and the GOP promptly held up his Senate Judiciary committee confirmation vote.

Until today. The committee just passed Holder this morning on a 17-2 vote. What gives? Justin Elliott smells a deal. (emphasis mine)

Sen. Kit Bond told the Washington Times today that Attorney General nominee Eric Holder privately "gave me assurances he is looking forward" on the issue of prosecutions of former Bush officials who authorized torture or operatives who carried out the policy.

The paper paraphrases Bond's remarks this way: that "Mr. Holder assured [Bond] privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program."

But Bond's quoted remarks are not quite so clear cut:

[Bond] added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."

Mr. Bond also said, "I believe he will look forward to keep the nation safe and not look backwards to prosecute intelligence operators who were fighting terror and kept our country safe since 9-11."

Gee, there's a shocker. The GOP is crowing that Holder won't touch Bush, nor will he touch those who tortured in his name.

Which makes Obama and Holder an accessory to war crimes. It's not like Kit Bond has anything to lose politically, he's retiring in 2010.

Change you can believe in?

[UPDATE] Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy calls bullshit on the whole thing.

The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.

"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."

"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.

This keeps getting more interesting all the time. So why did the GOP stop blocking Holder then?