Why Litbrit Right About Rules Mattering

I was perplexed by this Joy-Ann Reid post.

Liberals theoretically despise George W. Bush, but in reality, they want Barack Obama to BE George W. Bush — flouting the rules and flouting Congress, while liberal members of Congress appear to have been so trained by the Bush era to follow the White House’s lead, they desperately need Obama to tell them what to do, and to “fight” (ill-defined) before they’re willing or able to do their jobs.

Fellow PR blogger Litbrit has been a longtime fan of Barack Obama. That is until Obama floated the rules.

The last straw was not, as I thought most likely, the president's unnecessary caving in to the obstructionist Republican minority in Congress and extending the costly Bushian tax cuts for wealthy Americans. No, it was this nasty Wikileaks revelation--about the current White House administration's despicable sotto voce attempts to strong-arm certain more law-abiding (and probably more morally-upright) foreign governments and thus stymie war crimes investigations abroad--which sparked my own epiphany. I realized that despite my having passionately called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their war crimes back in 2007 (great comment thread there at Ezra's old place, if you've got time), I was now at a point where I was allowing others--even some fellow lefties--to (nearly) convince me of how politically inexpedient, how inconvenient, and how costly-to-the-national-morale such war crimes investigations would be. And I was also--mistakenly (oh how mistaken I was!)--believing, all along, that President Obama would eventually turn his seemingly robust moral attentions to the ugly task of holding the criminals accountable. I could wait; it would happen. I was wrong. Jonathan Turley sums it up nicely:

Sadly, I was one of those people telling Litbrit impeachment would be a waste of political energy. I realize now how wrong I am.

Litbrit wants and expects the President to honor the "rules" we call international law. Litbrit blogged about another Wikileaks revelation. A June 24, 2009, a cable between US assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli and Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar reveals private defense contractors (aka mercenaries) DynCorp used children for paid sexual services.

1. (C) SUMMARY: Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli discussed a range of issues with Minister of Interior (MoI) Hanif Atmar on June 23. On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives." He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of "purchasing a service from a child." He pressed for CSTC-A to be given full control over the police training program, including contractors. Mussomeli counseled that an overreaction by the Afghan goverment (GIRoA) would only increase chances for the greater publicity the MoI is trying to forestall.

The Guardian Reports the Obama administration got a Washington Post reporter to bury the story. What the Washington Post failed to report was young Afghan boys ages 8 to 15 years-old were sexually molested by two Afghan police officers and other men at a party thrown by DynCorp. The children are called Bacha boys. The boys wear make-up and women's clothes. They dance for men and are their sexual services are sold off to the highest bidder. Frontline did a story on the hidious practice.



Reid is wrong. Progressives are mad because policies like this hurt America. It is hard to cheer on Obama when his tax cut package will raise taxes on those making under $30,000. It is hard to believe that are foreign policy will become sane when the Obama administration cover up child rape. I wish Obama would have more respect for the rules and so does Litbrit.