5/14: X-Rated Photos

The political blogosphere is in an uproar over Pres. Obama's decision to reverse his position on the release of the detainee abuse photos (Obama now opposes the release of the photos because he believes that it would "further inflame anti-American opinion [and] put our troops in greater danger"). Liberal bloggers are furious about Obama's flip-flop. They don't buy his claim that releasing the photos will endanger our troops; Gregg Levine writes: "[I]t isn't the photos; it is the acts themselves that put US troops in danger. The abuse is widely known among Iraqis, and those inclined to act don't need photographic evidence as justification."

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers support Obama's decision. While a few of them are praising the President for reversing his stance, most of them are attributing his switch to politics. Citing Obama's prior shift on telecom immunity and his rumored upcoming shift on indefinite detention, Michael Goldfarb observes: "Obama's made a habit of reversing himself on key national security issues when the politics shift."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Smith, Dayen) are accusing Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid of demonstrating a lack of leadership with his inability to get IU law prof. Dawn Johnsen confirmed as OLC chief.
• Liberal bloggers (Black, Morrill, digby, Benen, BooMan, Cole) are ridiculing the GOP following reports that the RNC plans to pass a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party." Most conservative bloggers aren't commenting on the RNC resolution, although one of them calls it "stupid."
• Liberal bloggers (Houle, digby, Yglesias, Hamsher) are congratulating Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler after she won a Journalism Award from the Hillman Foundation for her investigative work.

OBAMA: Meet The New Boss

Liberal bloggers are blasting Obama's decision to reverse his position on the release of the detainee abuse photos:

• Daily Kos diarist Cenk Uygur: "This is an unbelievable moment. Dick Cheney's PR offensive over the last month actually worked. Barack Obama just crumbled and will follow Cheney's command to not release the new set of detainee abuse pictures."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The more this administration is seen as continuing the policies of the previous administration, the more damage will be done to us internationally."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama's claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of 'The Troops' which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama's calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they're being suppressed."
• digby: "Apparently, the logic is that the military will refuse to investigate criminal behavior if there is any chance that pictures of such criminal behavior could be made public. So we simply won't make pictures of it public anymore."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I have precisely no desire to put our troops in danger. (Just one more reason not to torture people in the first place.) But we are supposed to be a democracy, and what our government does in our name ought to be available to us unless there is some very good reason to keep it secret. And the fact that people would be appalled by it is not such a reason -- if anything, it just makes the case for disclosure stronger. After all, the things it is most important to disclose are the things that people care about, not the things that are a matter of complete indifference."
• BooMan: "[D]espite having a lot of sympathy for the tough choice involved here, I think this is a mistake by the Obama administration. I do not want to put any troops in unnecessary danger, but I also don't want to do damage to our legal system and see the government gain more power to conceal its crimes."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is disgusted: "Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias thinks the politics of this debate don't favor civil libertarians: "[I]f you want to think about why this is happening, ask yourself when's the last time a politician lost an election because he was too deferential to the attitudes and institutional prerogatives of the national security apparatus of the United States. I don't think it's happened since the early 1970s. And it's a not a coincidence that back then we got FISA and the Church Committee and so forth. But until it happens again, things will get worse and worse and worse in general even if there are spots of improvement."

Meanwhile, TPM's Josh Marshall makes an observation: "If we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe?"

OBAMA II: Flip-Flop Alert!

A few conservative bloggers are offering Obama mild praise for reversing himself:

• NRO's Peter Wehner: "President Obama has done a good and important thing by reversing himself on a previous commitment. [...] What motivated Obama to take this action is impossible to know. Divining our own motivations on things we do is hard enough; trying to judge the motivations of others is far more difficult. All I can say is that the president has done the right thing -- if in my judgment the blindingly obvious thing -- in this instance. To have released these photos would have been a reckless and irresponsible act, one he would have quickly come to regret."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I agree with the general consensus that President Obama has made the right call here, albeit later than he should have."

However, most conservative bloggers are simply mocking Obama for flip-flopping:

• Michelle Malkin: "Well, well, well. Reality bites the White House in the ass, again."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Obama has...flip-flopped on releasing the 'torture' photos. Meet the new boss, yada yada. All of this was entirely predictable. And yet, his election was a matter of fierce moral urgency about which there could be no serious disagreement..."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "With these pictures, you just know some non-liberal had to sit down with Barack Obama and explain the real world ramifications of what he was about to do. Can't you just hear Obama after the briefing? 'It would make our job in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan harder? But, I thought they would appreciate our honesty! You mean some people would use these photos as an excuse to riot? I had no idea! And I would be held responsible? How can that be? I wasn't President when these photos were taken! Well, if there might be political ramifications, I guess the ACLU will have to get over it.'"

Meanwhile, NRO's Andy McCarthy wants Obama to go further in ensuring that the photos aren't released: "[Obama]'s now getting plaudits for reversing himself and his Justice Department (which, in contrast to the Bush Justice Department, didn't want to fight this case at all -- just wanted to release the photos). But he is still trying to get away with voting present -- which is to say, he is hiding behind the judges. It is in Obama's power, right this minute, to end this debacle by issuing an executive order suppressing disclosure of the photos due to national security and foreign policy concerns. [...] Besides being simple, issuing such an order would be a strong position and the screamingly obvious right thing to do."

OBAMA III: This Is About Politics, Not Principles

Most conservative bloggers are attributing Obama's switch to politics:

• Wizbang's Lorie Byrd: "It appears Obama has taken the advice of Dick Cheney (sorry, couldn't resist that). It is disturbing that he did not take this position in the beginning, but I am glad he has come around to it now. Not only was this the sensible position regarding the safety of our troops and security of our country, but I suspect Obama came to realize this was the only smart political option for him as well."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's encouraging to know that, ultimately, there is a limit on how far Obama will go to launch or facilitate attacks America's honor. That limit apparently is reached when generals tell him American troops may well die. It would be more encouraging if a lesser showing would suffice."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[O]ne wonders what inner compass guides the president. Surely the argument that releasing the photos would imperil our troops and incite the enemy was long known. Surely, he could have seen the firestorm that would have ensued when he made the decision originally to allow the ACLU to steamroll voter national security interests, right? One can't help concluding this is all politics: How's it going to fly? Can the administration 'get away with it'? Will the public side with those nasty Cheneys? It all feels like fingers testing the wind. And the message is unmistakable: he who screams the loudest and makes the most convincing case that the president's own reputation will suffer has the winning argument."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The expiration date on Obama's original position came less than three weeks after publicly taking it. At the time, Obama insisted that the need to be honest exceeded our national-security concerns, and the safety of our troops as well. What changed? The decision angered the military, which recalled the hysterics over the Abu Ghraib photos. Even Obama's allies on the decision admitted that the release would damage security and put American troops in more danger, including [MA Sen.] John Kerry, who said they made great propaganda for our terrorist enemies. With the CIA already battling the White House after the release of the OLC memos, the last thing Obama needed was a war with the Pentagon."

The Weekly Standard's Goldfarb notices a pattern: "Obama's made a habit of reversing himself on key national security issues when the politics shift. He flipped on telecom immunity after promising to filibuster the provision. He flipped on military commissions for detainees -- or at least reports in the Washington Post and New York Times indicate that he soon will. He's flipped even on the right to due process, which will now be withheld from as many as 100 detainees who the administration has said will be held without a trial of any kind. Now Obama has flipped on releasing some 44 photos that allegedly show the abuse of detainees by U.S. forces. [...] President Obama is now commander in chief, and he has an obligation to the troops under his command that exceeds any promises made to liberal interest groups during the campaign. No one should question that Obama is doing this for the right reasons, but it must also be noted that the president, as Politico's Josh Gerstein explains, wants 'to avoid giving Republican critics new fodder for attacks.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sometimes Context Is Irrelevant

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"I keep hearing this notion repeated that, when we think about the Bush administration and torture we should consider the context. It was post-9/11. The country was under attack. We were at war etc. The basic idea seems to be that torture may be indefensible in normal times, but under pressure it's fine. Or better put, principles are something you cling to when they are convenient.

A political leader who blaming 'context' for his bad decisions, is a quarterback blaming crowd noise for his five interceptions, or a writer blaming his fact-checkers for flubbing names. They put your byline at the top for a reason, dude.

People are judged by what they do under pressure, not what they do at the company picnic. If being a leader was simply a matter of doing the right thing, when it's easy to do the right thing, then anyone could lead. Of course, they think they did the right thing. Which makes me wonder why they keep bringing up context."

LEST WE FORGET: Classmates.com Employees Don't Have Heart To Tell CEO About Facebook

From The Onion:

"SEATTLE -- Employees at Classmates.com -- an online service that enables users to find and communicate with people from their past for a monthly fee -- have done everything in their power to keep the company's CEO from finding out about the wildly popular social networking site Facebook. 'He knows something is going on,' Classmates.com web coder Josh Krzysch said while combing his boss's newspaper and removing any offending articles. 'The other day he asked me why people aren't interested in getting in touch with old friends anymore, and I told him that the Internet just isn't very popular right now. What else was I supposed to say?' Employees claim that unless things somehow miraculously improve by next month, they plan to quietly pack up their desks and leave in the middle of the night."