Dishonorable Disclosures, Politics, and Foreign Policy

I have been assuming you will all have seen the video, “Dishonorable Disclosures” .  It was mentioned in the WSJ on their Washington Wire blog about a month ago.  It turned up in an email several days ago and since no one has mentioned it, I decided to share it while I rant today.

The disclosures being described as dishonorable are those made by the president and his administration in their attempts to gain as much political mileage out of the bin Laden assassination as possible.  Of course, it was triumph, a victory long sought, but whose victory was it?  Even few conservatives at the time of the bin Laden operation made any serious criticism.   Who would?  Yet some of us thought the trumpeting of Obama’s courage in the matter was considerably overblown, given that he was safe in DC and not on the ground risking his life.  Our Navy Seals had done that.  That Mr. Obama told nearly all about what had happened immediately was telling far too much too soon and diminishing the value of the operation to the nation (as described in the video).  What he did not tell, the vice president did tell, turning the whole matter into a public relations stunt for the White House.

You will almost certainly have read about the book by the Navy Seal, No Easy Day , purporting to reveal the true story behind the operation.  That the young man is being taken to task for revealing secrets is absurd given that all pertinent and important secrets had already been revealed.  No, I don’t consider the details of how bin Laden died as important.

Subsequent to the production of “Dishonorable Disclosures”, Dr. Shakil Afridi has been sentenced by a Pakistani tribal court to 33 years imprisonment.  How on earth do we leave that man to suffer like that?  Every time the president touts his success in taking down bin Laden we should ask him how Dr. Afridi is doing.  My “Afridi” link takes you to the recent interview with him.

I hear from members of the military that the Obama administration is held in very low regard in the services.  This is not just a matter of the president claiming the glory deserved by our servicemen, as well as putting them at risk as he has done.  Last month, John Fund wrote that the Obama campaign and the DNC are actively attempting to restrict military voting rights .

(I)t is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow military voters to cast in-person early ballots on the Saturday through Monday before Election Day , given that early voting for all other voters stops on the Friday before Election Day. Apparently, Team Obama has decided to take a break from howling about the alleged injustice of voter-ID laws to argue that military voters don’t deserve an occasional accommodation . . . . the Obama lawsuit seeks to establish a dangerous precedent that would diminish the rights of military voters — who already face serious obstacles to voting. In 2008, when election turnout nationwide was 62 percent, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported that only 5.5 percent of eligible military and overseas voters cast ballots that were actually counted. A survey by the Overseas Vote Foundation points to one possible explanation for the low turnout: According to its report, nearly 22 percent of civilian and military overseas voters never received their requested absentee ballot for the 2008 election, and 10 percent received their ballot less than seven days before the election.

Wouldn’t the commander in chief do anything to protect the civil rights of his troops, including their voting rights?  Not in this case.  While I might have doubted the rumors I heard of the loathing with which those in military service hold the president, that his campaign pursues this lawsuit supports the contention.  It means there are practical political reasons to limit the voting of military personnel.  I also note in this connection that in 2009, Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act to make voting it easier for military personnel and their families.  However, the Pentagon has failed to implement this law .  Is this a scandal or just politics?

The only good news in any of this is that it brings to about nil the likelihood of the predictions of some on the Right that Obama and Co. are planning to remain in power after the election no matter who wins.  They will?  They and whose army will do that?