Mr. Obama's Abu Ghraib, and Worse

The job our military has been asked to do is difficult enough without having it be made even harder by the presence in the ranks of degenerate psychopaths.

The army is currently prosecuting five soldiers for committing horrible atrocities against innocent Afghan civilians, murdering them in cold blood, cutting off fingers as trophies, and video-taping the bloody corpses with the soldiers posed like big game hunters gloating over their kills.

Hot Air reports:

Investigators at Der Spiegel unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the soldiers. The accompanying article in the magazine provides shocking details about the depraved, sadistic behavior of the men. In one alleged incident from last May, a mullah captured by the team is forced to kneel down in a ditch, where he is summarily executed. According to the article, the team later claimed to their superiors that the mullah had threatened them with a grenade and that they were acting in self-defense. This account still fails to explain why Gibbs reportedly severed one of the dead man’s fingers and removed one of his teeth, presumably as gruesome “souvenirs.”

It all turns one's stomach, and for my part I'd have no trouble recommending the death penalty should these soldiers be proven guilty. Their despicable crimes deserve execution, and their iniquity is made even worse by the awful disgrace they've brought upon our military, our country, and those who have been grievously wounded and killed on our behalf.

So far, the White House, staffed by people quick to condemn the Bush administration for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, has released no statement regarding the photos or accounts. Neither has the New York Times, doubtless because Mr. Bush is no longer president.

The Obama Mysteries

President Obama may be doing the right thing in participating in the effort to stop Qaddafi from slaughtering the Libyan people, although why he didn't support intervention in Sudan where millions were slaughtered, or in Yemen where dozens have been gunned down, or in Syria or Iran where governments are killing their civilians is something of a mystery.

Also mysterious is how he squares his current willingness to kill Libyans with earlier criticisms of George W. Bush's Middle East policy. For example, in a 2002 speech Mr. Obama blasted his predecessor's apparent plans to invade Iraq with these words:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

What did he say here about Hussein and Iraq that does not apply equally as well to Qaddafi and Libya? Consistency is apparently not a very highly valued element in Mr. Obama's skill set. Later in the speech he says this:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

Indeed. Then in a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe he was asked to identify the circumstances in which the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress. He replied:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.....As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

Mr. Obama, however, failed to advise Congress before launching missiles on Libya and killing who knows how many Libyans.

Here's another mystery. The problem in Libya is obviously Moammar Qaddafi. Because of this man's actions Mr. Obama believes we are justified in killing Libyan soldiers and perhaps some innocent civilians, but Qaddafi himself is not to be targeted. We are not to touch the man who is murdering his people, but because he is murdering his people we are evidently justified in killing his people, too. What sense does any of this make? What are the principles which govern the President's thinking? Are there any?

I've read that Mr. Obama and some of his male advisors were reluctant to order the strike on Libya, but the President was persuaded by his U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and an advisor named Samantha Power to do it. Someone on the radio this morning asked if anybody remembers the days when the feminists told us at every opportunity that if we wanted peace in the world we needed to put more women into positions of power. So much for that silly idea.