« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What is REALLY wrong with divulging the contents of those interrogation memos.

I’m not referring to the obvious stupidity of revealing our internal reasoning on this subject to our enemies.  Nor do I mean the obvious stupidity of a President who has now told his advisers that “whatever you tell me may be revealed to the public someday by a future President.  Some future Congress or DOJ might decide that your advice constituted illegal incitement to commit crimes against humanity.  They might prosecute you, but I won’t, I promise.  Now, what was it you wanted to tell me?”

No, I mean that what is REALLY wrong is that nothing was gained by the United States when these details were revealed. So far, only Brit Hume has noticed this.  I’d like to go a bit farther than just the question of what was gained?-nothing-and look at why the memos were released, assuming that somebody thought something would be gained or they wouldn’t have released them.

Let’s start with the person who made that decision.  That is, of course, Barack Obama.  He went against the advice of all living CIA Directors, including his own, when he declassified those memos.  As near as I can determine, the only reason he’s given for doing so is that it will make us all safer because the rest of the world will now know that we, as a country, won’t do the activities discussed in the memos.  But why did the memos themselves have to be revealed to achieve this dubious goal?  Couldn’t he have done as well by simply stating that “We don’t torture.  Period.  And by that I mean we don’t do the following,” and list whatever he wants to.  Wouldn’t that have achieved the same thing, without giving up any Executive Privilege, and without exposing past, present, and future advisers to unnecessary scrutiny for simply giving the President advice?  The answer is, obviously, yes, it would have had the same result.  This means that his given reason doesn’t hold water any better than an al Qaida terrorist after a serious interrogation.

So what is the REAL motive for Obama?  It has to be a strong one for him to go against the advice of his own CIA drector, Leon Panetta.  What does logic tell us it is?  It tells us that Obama’s gigantic ego and inferiority complex has overruled Panetta’s brain.

Inferiority complex?  How is that possible?  Isn’t he the greatest President ever, even smarter than Hillary Clinton, who is the smartest woman in the world?  Well, no, and his decisions make that apparent.  But he may well be the most arrogant President ever.

Forget about what he’s said while campaigning; think about what he and his surrogates say and do every day. One of their bad habits is to make it clear that anything bad that happens is left over from the Bush administration, it isn’t Obama’s fault.  In fact, nothing is Obama’s fault.  They even do it when it makes no sense at all, about trivial things.  They are obsessed with avoiding blame for anything.  That is his gigantic ego running amok.

More importantly, this President is obsessed with proving that he’s better than George W. Bush.  The policies of the Bush administration are always the “failed policies of the Bush administration” when Obama speaks about them.  We don’t just reject torture, we “no longer tolerate torture during the interrogation of prisoners,” leaving he clear implication that torture was approved under the Bush administration.  Guantanamo Bay Prison isn’t just the best facility we have for holding prisoners captured during the war on terror and al Qaida, it’s a “disgraceful blot on our national honor, which I promise we’ll close ASAP.”  (OK, I can’t find that quote, but I’m close.)  Statements and actions like those are a pretty good indicator of severe feelings of inferiority.  When you constantly have to prove you’re better than somebody else, it’s clear that you don’t believe it yourself.

Now the picture emerges.  Our country gains nothing by the release of the memos, but Barack Obama gets to give himself a big pat on the back for not only not being Bush, he shows us just how bad Bush was, because Bush had advisers who didn’t think waterboarding and other rough tactics were OK when dealing with these prisoners.  Bush really was the Devil; Hugo Chavez was right.  That makes Obama so much better than Bush it isn’t even a matter for discussion.

It’s terrible to have to say it, but it’s terrible behavior on the part of Obama–he released those memos for the same reason he does everything else, for self-promotion purposes.  By trashing Bush, he makes himself look better.  His inferiority complex required it, and his ego told him that it would be OK, no matter what Panetta and the others told him.  And before you say, “Aw, shucks, he couldn’t be that bad,” think about this:  Any other plausible reason is even worse, involving a lack of concern for the fate of his country or an abdication of his decision-making authority to one of his less patriotic advisers, perhaps one who has already admitted performing violent acts against the Government in the past.  Such a person would likely have no compunction about damaging his country, even if his “friend” Obama is now President.

COMMENTS

  • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

    I agree with your conclusion that the only possible motive for releasing the memo was to make the Bush Administration look bad. That means the guy who’s driving our bus is looking in the rear-view mirror. That’s good for us politically, but horrible for the country strategically.

    I saw that limp-d*ck David Axelrod defending the release by saying that it was OK, the information had already been released by the New York Times Book Review. Oh, swell, they’re the ones deciding what secrets to release.

    I can imagine the howls of protest if the gov’t released some proprietary information of the NYT Book Review, something that gave the New Yorker or the Atlantic Manthly some competitive advantage. Why, they can’t do that!

    But here we’ve got a gang of Bolsheviks and former bomb-throwers willing to publish anything damaging to the nation, and now the leaders of the nation allowing that to set policy for the release of classified documents. Unbelievable!

  • Flagstaff

    I had it when the NYT leaked the info on both the NSA surveillance program and the “secret” prisons overseas, too. The NYT was making the final decision on what should be kept Top Secret and what should not.

    Nice that Obama has assured th CIA operatives that HIS DOJ won’t go after them. After all, the Bush DOJ didn’t go after those leakers to the NYT, did they?

  • Flagstaff

    Now he is OPEN TO PROSECUTING the lawyers who provide advice to the President.

    How would YOU like to be his adviser? Think he’ll get anything but “Yes, sir” and PC correctness? Any outside-the-box reasoning? This man is either a fool or lives in an alternate universe.

    Or, he has a completely hidden agenda.

  • Achance

    The Pentagon Papers? This is the stuff of heroism to Sixties Leftists and college professors make them into icons for the young skulls full of mush.

  • Rod_Patrick

    He has to recover his lost popularity points by going back again to the former Administration and possibly get public sympathy for his own sake.

    Visiting the CIA staff and giving them assurance is another case of “de javu” for this shameless President. It’s exactly the same with his former election fiasco of saying something against NAFTA and Free Trade while “asking” his minions to secretly appease the angry Canadians.

  • Common_Cents

    His response to the tirade against America at the Latin America conference.

    “Don’t blame me, I was only a few months old.”

    Obama is totally in it for himself. He is the President of Obama, he is only “Acting” President of the United States.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    think that there is but one orthodox opinion on most all matters that is unrelated to the facts of what moves human nature. No, they are controlled by what they wish were human nature and what they deem to be “right” according to their leftist utopian religion.

    So all the lib lawyers agree anyway or are afraid to disagree lest they don’t get to be on Harvard Lqw Review or, later in life, get to work at Fannie for a stint of golden parachuting.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    pardoned? Wasn’t Obama only 5 yrs old in 1968?

  • Doc Holliday

    the Doc knows cool.

  • Flagstaff

    Liberals believe that they are always right, and therefore they don’t need to hear any contrasting opinions.

    Conservatives know they could be wrong, and they want to hear all the sides.

    The conservative way is the American way. That is, this democratic republic needs all sides to be aired, all sides to receive a hearing. To put it simply, majority rule means that after all sides are heard by all parties, the majority is most likely to recognize which side is right. That can’t happen if they don’t hear all sides.

    That’s why news media who don’t present the whole story are tarnishing their Constitutional obligations, the obligations that are the reason behind the strong protection of the First Amendment for the press. It’s why the President, of all people, should realize that HE NEEDS RELIABLE ADVICE, not simply “Yes, sir” and “Will that be all, sir?”

    The fact that Obama doesn’t seem to understand what he’s done is just more proof that, as Michael Sheuer has said, we are living under the “tyranny of incompetence.”

    And nobody seems to have noticed that it wasn’t the lawyers advising Bush who put any interrogation policies in place, it was the President, and if THEY are ever prosecuted, there must inevitably follow the prosecution of a former President of the United States for faithfully executing the powers of his office.

  • redneck_hippie

    There must be a conspiracy. Anyway. Great diary!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    what works to maximize liberty and civility/prosperity, if you will.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    am rarely attracted to short titles and I suspect that not cool for those that wish to be heard!

    but I hear you

    but a hint

    I have been here for many years…..method to Mike A DeVine’s madness

    and I’m a baptist

  • Doc Holliday

    nt

  • Doc Holliday

    there is a method to your madness :)

  • DONTREADONME
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • Doc Holliday

    did you follow the thread? See I was making fun of the long titles…….see it was about humor.

  • Doc Holliday

    I thought the -nt in the body was a nice touch.

  • Doc Holliday

    you know you are my boy!

  • DONTREADONME

    for this
    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/27/w.h.pranks/index.html

    Doc, sorry for using the question mark, yeah I followed that all, never made a comment on this sight shorter than three characters like “and-nt”, so I had to break my record with “?-nt” may have better to use “&-nt”

  • Doc Holliday

    ahh, I get it, see I missed your humor sir, touche.

  • Doc Holliday

    it shows the power of a single letter.

  • DONTREADONME

    touche, with the whole period thing. Guess I better get back to some serious “peanut gallery’ material. Come on Libs, “I am your Hucklebery”

  • Flagstaff

    I thought I might have been deemed disrespectful, just because I used the words “gigantic ego” and “inferiority complex.” Also, “arrogant.” Today, Rush added “narcissistic,” but that had been used before, too, hadn’t it?

    I’ve found that I have to hit the recommend button several times, at times. It’s been a bug for a while, hasn’t it?

  • redneck_hippie

    about there being a primary challenge to McCain from the right? The founder of the minutemen?

  • Flagstaff

    Jim Deakin had a booth at the Phoenix tea party, collecting signatures for the Republican primary.

    I know little about either one, but I do know that McCain has worn out his welcome, in spite of his past service.

    McCain and Newt both suffer from the same malady, IMHO. Both seem to think you can make deals with the Devil on the Devil’s good days. As I heard the other day, when you make a deal with the Devil you have to recognize that you’re the junior partner.