In refusing to fight the release of the prisoner interrogation photos, the Obama administration, according to ACLU attorney Amrit Singh, is showing its commitment to transparency.
Yes, it’s transparent, all right—transparently clear that Obama is determined to strike fear into the hearts of CIA agents who did their duty under the Bush administration, even if they acted with the green light of lawyers and Congress.
Transparent that our new President will stop at nothing to discredit his predecessor, including (and perhaps especially) endangering all future intelligence and our country’s security. Do we have a single doubt that, if the ACLU had been trying to release photos of a policy attached to the Obama administration, he would have fought such “transparency” right up to the Supreme Court?
As for the ACLU, the group helpfully pushing for the release of the photos, I have nothing but contempt for that institution (to which I gave money for years long ago, and which still has me on their mailing list). I’m entirely in agreement with Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, who referred to the ACLU’s campaign for the photographs’ release as “prurient” and “reprehensible,” and an action the Obama administration “should have fought all the way.”
Dream on, Dr. Lowenthal. This is custom-made for Obama. He doesn’t have to actually do his own dirty work in pressing for the release of the pictures. He just has to allow others to do it for him.
What is that dirty work? The release of the photos furthers the favored Obama narrative: the US did evil things and must atone, but under the great Obama it will go forth and sin no more. Security? Intelligence? They won’t be needed in the new age of Obama, during which our new rectitude will cause other nations to drop all aggressive impulses in their awe at the guidance of our inspirational moral compass.
Remember way back during the campaign, when Michelle Obama caught such flak for saying that now she was really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? The reason was twofold: Barack Obama was doing well, and hope was making a comeback (come to think of it, that was one reason, wasn’t it?) It strikes me now that this was a deeply felt sentiment that Barack Obama shares.
I think it’s transparently clear: the man is a dangerous egotist whose narcissism requires that his predecessor be crushed and discredited in every possible way. And he doesn’t care if he endangers our national security to do so.
[NOTE: Rich Lowry has a similar notion.]
Goss writes with great clarity and urgency:
[O]ur government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.
Read the whole thing.]