April 25, 2009

Betrayer in Chief

Over at NRO's "the tank," Steve Shippert leaves little else to be said about Barack Obama's easy betrayal of the military.

The assault is relentless. It is enraging. And today, the Obama administration's assault on those who dare to defend America from terrorist thugs who rejoice in publicizing beheadings, mass murder, and pure evil are on notice: "You will be punished. We're coming after you."

The target audience now includes the American Warrior. The Obama administration has abdicated the Warrior's defense, refusing to appeal the 2nd Circuit's decision that more photos should be released from investigations of the detention of enemy fighters from the battlefield. The Obama administration has sided with the ACLU and abandoned our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.


The Obama administration — and those at the Pentagon not standing up in vociferous defense of its warriors — had better buckle up for an American backlash. Pay attention here.

The photos, taken from Air Force and Army criminal investigations, apparently are not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But some show military personnel intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint.

The photos are not egregious. Not even rising to the level of panties on heads. But no matter. The assault is on. And your president — your Commander in Chief — supports it.

The release of these images serves no practical purpose, except perhaps for "enhanced prosecution techniques" against our own. Understand clearly that the purpose of the release — and the Obama administration’s decision to do so willingly if not energetically — is to denigrate the American Warrior and to further the assault on the American psyche.


...the principled defense of the warrior is over, by choice of the Obama administration in directing the Pentagon to end the defense short of SCOTUS. It is an outright abdication.

It's utterly an utterly detestable acquiescence of one left-wing radical to a group of like-minded fellow travelers that would rather see our soldiers demoralized or killed than victorious—and that's just what they're willing to admit in public.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2009 01:08 PM

100 days of the spin doctor.we now know the real obama.suppressing & attacking the opposing party via.obama network.more money spent than 3 or 4 admins.together. No tax reducions now.most appointees are tax cheats.fem-nazis in dod & homeland security.supporting crooks like dodd of ct.trying to socialize medicine,gm,banks.disqualifying & teabagers as extremists & idiots via his propaganda network & tolerance for opposing points of views.Our vets could be terrorist .This appears to be heading to facsism. we will wait for the next election. the people will clean house

Posted by: norm at April 26, 2009 02:31 AM

It's late but I'm obviously missing something here.

The photo's don't show our troops doing anything wrong, but they must not be shown because showing them will betray our Warriors as they will make people think less of the soldiers in the photos - which show the troops doing nothing wrong.


Posted by: Jim at April 26, 2009 02:49 AM

Or is the argument that although the photos show soldiers doing things that can get them court-martialed, and although US law says the public has a right to see the photos, our government must protect the good soldiers who don't commit court-martial offenses by breaking US law and keeping the pictures secret. Because somehow good soldiers will be depressed to have the public know there are bad soldiers. Again, that makes no sense to me at all. It's like arguing criminals must not be seen on shows like Cops because law abiding people who live in the same neighborhoods, or who work similar jobs as the criminals, will get depressed when they see the criminal behavior on TV.

Posted by: Jim at April 26, 2009 03:11 AM

Jim, you obviously are missing things... or are being dense on purpose.

As Poligazette notes:

If you want to demoralize the American army - while it is fighting two wars abroad - you should do exactly what Obama has promised to do.

The question is not whether it will fire back in the Middle East. It undoubtedly will. Anti-Americans across the region will undoubtedly spread the photos and use it to enrage the masses. You can only wonder whether the blowback will be limited to protests or whether more will happen.

Barack Obama is endangering current-duty soldiers for the sins of those already doing jail time for their actions.

Surely, even you can see how much of a betrayal this is?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2009 06:05 PM

Well if it's a betrayal to the troops to do something that will inflame the passions of the masses in the Middle East, it surely was a betrayal to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques, and the invasion of Iraq. Hard to imagine anything that enraged the ME masses more than that. Am I correct in assuming you feel Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bybee, Yoo, Tenet etc betrayed out troops?

OK, I'm guessing that's wishful thinking on my part.

Let me just ask you this then, what legal justification do you think the DOJ (or if you wish Obama) has to deny the release of the photos to the ACLU?

And does this feeling of yours that information should be suppressed if it could be used by someone to enrage 3rd parties extent to more than just our troops? Should material that could enflame someones passions towards, say Obama, be censored lest someone be made so angry that they might cause him harm? It's quite a slippery slope you're playing on here.

Posted by: Jim at April 27, 2009 10:41 PM