Anyone see a pattern here?

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder complained that his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay was forced on him by Congress .

From the Wall Street Journal:

Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the Administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States," he said yesterday, in spinning twist number one. The Justice Department was prepared to make a "powerful case against the 9/11 defendants in federal court," but the politics were causing too many delays on the trial, and it couldn't wait any longer.

For the record, we assume Mr. Holder is referring to the likes of New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and the Democrats who ran the Congress last year and passed a law that blocked the funding for civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees. Mr. Schumer-no slouch at divining public opinion-was an early and vocal opponent of Mr. Holder's brainstorm to try KSM in downtown Manhattan. And yesterday Mr. Schumer called the decision the "final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea."

He went on to state that that the case had been marked by "needless controversy since the beginning" and that the prosecution "should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points". This was absurd on its face. Had he been smarter he would have realized the trouble to which his and presumably Barack Obama's decision to try KSM in New York City would have led. It would have been a disaster not just in the court of public opinion but also in the legal court as well.

This was amply demonstrated by the manifold failures that led to Ahmed Ghailiani (who was behind the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania) being found not guilty on 280 charges against him save one (he was found guilty of destroying government buildings - yet was found innocent of those murdered in those bombings.  Hence, the foolishness of relying on criminal trials for terrorists).

But the stunner comes when he insults Congress and the CIA . These remarks were widely un-reported (surprised?).

From the New York Post:

The AG, however, felt compelled to wag his middle finger at Congress, the CIA and the American people: "Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence" to determine where the trials should be held.

Asked by reporters whether Congress reflected the will and wisdom of its 300 million constituents, Holder smoldered: "Do I know better than them? Yes."

He next accused critics of using the trials to "scor[e] political points."

(Politics? He should know. Yesterday's announcement came on the very day that Team Obama kicked off its 2012 reelection bid -- and getting KSM & Co. off the radar screen won't hurt that effort.)

Then Holder sullied the CIA:

"There is no other tool that has demonstrated the ability to both incapacitate terrorists and collect intelligence from them . . . as our justice system."

That's a breathtaking claim, without a shred of evidence to support it, as far as foreign terrorists are concerned.

And it's also an astonishing slap at the intelligence agents who captured, interrogated and collected intelligence from KSM -- and who have moved mountains to protect this nation from harm.

That is, Holder scoffed at the very people who delivered KSM for prosecution.

For sheer arrogance, few public officials could surpass the attorney general.

For sheer incompetence, too.

Of course by now we should know that Obama's handpicked people to lead this nation have no respect for the people and for Congress (except when Congress does its bidding).

If we need any confirmation of this attitude, look no farther than Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who whines that Congress is trying to take away her power to regulate greenhouse gasses (a bipartisan effort to prevent damage to wide parts of the economy and to preserve jobs).

Here is Ms. Jackson's views of Congress:

The biggest criticism that I've leveled - and I've done it in my hearing testimony - is that what the current efforts do is overrule scientists on a scientific finding. Congress is essentially passing a law that says, We, a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue. And that to me is what this Congress could be remembered for, more than anything else. History will forget a lot of the day-to-day, inside the beltway discussions about riders and budget and trying to get rid of or defund the EPA, but I don't think that history will forget the first time that politicians made a law to overrule scientists.

How dare "a bunch of lawmakers" stand in her way? Her derisive comment has no basis in fact or law since Congress is not deciding "what science is" but merely fulfilling their duties to pass laws taking into account all considerations - science, job losses, harm to the economy, efficiency, and more. Since Congressmen are elected by us, Lisa Jackson's also believes that her views trump ours.

Indeed, that is one attitude that many in this administration seem to have in common - as if this was not fully on display in the ugly process that saddled us with ObamaCare.