Obama Changes His Mind - No To Release of Guantanamo Photo’s – Court to Decide – Dick Cheney’s Points on National Security Taken to Heart

Barack Obama with Dick Cheney - photo cfnews13

In a stunning reversal of policy, President Obama has decided to block the release of photographs of alleged abuse of terrorists (enemy combatants) at Guantanamo Bay. The decision on Wednesday, as reported by the New York Times, reverses his previous decision not to block the release of the photographs. In doing so, the President has made a smart decision – regardless of some critics who point out that the Courts will be left with the decision, and any anger from the left will be aimed at the Courts rather than the President and his administration. An AP analysis suggests that the administrations claim of finding a new legal argument for preventing the release of the photographs is false; and that the reversal is merely political, aimed at protecting the President from the angry left. That said, the President’s decision, based on national security issues, as noted by Press Secretary Gibbs, shows a level of understanding of the scope of the global impact of the war on terror that appeared to be previously absent. One may also give credit to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who in recent weeks has kept up a continual assault on the administration, specifically hammering home the dangers of releasing said photographs. Cheney, who is not the most outspoken individual, had ratcheted up the criticism to unprecedented heights – one must assume that given Cheney’s background, motivation for the barrage was based on national security, not party affiliation. It's all possibly relative that DNA played a factor and similar decisions can be seen coming out of the Administration should Cheney, once again, be as vocally aggressive on issues of National Security..

Obama’s initial decision to approve the release of the photographs was a sticking point with Senate Republicans, and rightly so. The release of photographs from Abu Ghraib prison produced a backlash across the Middle East, and further placed an additional threat on U.S. forces in the field. Regardless f the fact, that by global standards of torture, the Abu Ghraib photographs were rather benign, they were a rallying point for the left, and those militant Islamic groups who would grasp at any straw as an excuse to attack the U.S. and its interests. Although, not armed with a crystal ball, one must imagine that any photographs of Guantanamo detainees being “tortured”, would be equally or less benign that those from the Iraqi Prison, given the fact that prisoners at Guantanamo are treated exceptionally well compared to those held in U.S. prisons (where, it can be argued, life behind bars in the U.S., although restraining offers amenities that would not be found outside the U.S.).

In reversing his decision, the President, regardless of any alleged motive, moves to protect American Troops and, as a bonus, serves to remove a possible Al Qaeda/Taliban recruiting tool as well as angering those on the fringe (Daily Kos) who see Presidents decision as “illegal” . However, in a recent Rasmussen Poll regarding the release of detainees from Guantanamo, 75% of those polled, objected to detainees being moved to the U.S. Homeland. It is not a stretch to imagine that a high percentage would also object to the release of said photographs. Therefore, Obama has moved to the center right on this particular issue, which is indicative of the majority of the American voting bloc, regardless of Party affiliation. Although one can well imagine that the New York Times editorial board will be somewhat disappointed, as its constant drumbeat of “horror” over Abu Ghraib, kept the “controversy” in the public arena for months on end the decision will set well with the majority of the American Public.

Rick Warren and Barack Obama - Los Angles Times Parses Words or “How the Press Turns”

With all the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, especially from gay activists and those who opposed California’s Proposition 8, it is curious that those who decry intolerance are themselves intolerant – especially when it comes to opposing viewpoints. What is interesting is that Obama’s choice of spiritual leaders is being dissected by the press, more than his association with Reverend Wright. The problem that Gay Activists and the left have with Warren is that he opposes Gay Marriage, and defines Marriage as that between one man and one women (additionally he is an evangelical Christian Leader – strike one, so to speak), a sentiment that is shared by the President-Elect.. However, theses detractors assumed that since the President Elect was in favor of gay rights, his opinion would transfer to the issue of marriage – there is a difference between civil unions (which offer all the benefits of marriage, and is an option that most American’s would approve) and traditional Marriage (which has religious connotations).

The basis of an article posted yesterday was an article from the LA Times, which closed as follows;

Earlier this month, in an interview with reporters from the Los Angeles Times, Obama answered a question about his current spiritual advisor by telling reporters he had found inspiration in a "prayer circle" of supportive clergy leaders who include Bishop T.D. Jakes of the Dallas-based mega-church the Potter's House, the Rev. Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Warren.

From that article, one would surmise that Mr. Obama specifically chose three clergy to be his spiritual advisors. This is not the case. From a transcript of the L.A. Times original interview one understands that Obama is not specifically choosing these three men as his advisors, rather, they are part of a larger group of spiritual leaders who have “prayed for him”.

Q: Do you have a spiritual advisor now? Many presidents have had them.

O: You know, one of the wonderful things that we did during the campaign was to set up sort of a prayer circle across the country, of pastors who, from all denominations, all religious faiths, who would every morning, a few of them would get on the phone and pray for me.

Sometimes I'd get on the phone. And, you know, they're made up of people as diverse as, you know, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Joseph Lowery, just a wonderful collection of people and, by the way, across the political spectrum. I'm not even sure that all of them voted for me.

But they were willing to pray for me. And that's something that was wonderful.

The Times, whether intentionally or not, changed the entire meaning of the first interview, giving an impression (isn’t that always the way), of something more “dubious” in Obama’s choice of “Warren” (additionally they chose not to use the Pastors first name, dismissively.)

Now, as the “Warren Controversy” is being played out on every Network and Newspaper, Blog or otherwise across the country, it is important to put into context the following: Obama had stated from the beginning that he was a Christian, his choice of Reverend Wright aside, (as well as his views on abortion), never wavered. When the “Wright” controversy exploded, Obama, as a candidate was in no haste to name a new spiritual advisor, being human, it is a personal choice that takes time. Additionally, should he have chosen Jakes, Lowery or Warren, for that matter, it would be his personal choice, one that is a guarantee of the Constitution.

Therefore, those that feel they have “bought into” the Presidency by way of support (whether financial or by the pen), feel they are owed some sort of allegiance from the President, and somehow have the ability to affect the choices he will make. They are not disillusioned, they are delusional. As the President Elect has made additional choices that have angered left leaning activists (including your local daily paper’s editorial board), prior to his inaugural, it is apparent that should he continue on this centrist path, the romance that once was, will become an assault. The only possible good that could come from this is job security for those employed by a media who has, up until this point, been losing readers and viewership faster than residents are leaving California and Massachusetts. (Those states can’t blame the Internet) Perhaps the 50 percent of the country who are consistently incensed by the editorial content within the main news of the aforementioned, and have cancelled subscriptions or tuned out, will have a change of heart. It is certainly not fair to Barack Obama, nor was it fair to “name the Republican”, that said – Prediction: Shocking Headline 2010: “New York Times Now Accepting Applications!”