Far too many journalists in the Washington-Gotham axis believe that any criticism of President Barack Obama must have its roots in cynical right-wing political opportunism and nothing else. At Bloomberg News, in a dispatch time-stamped June 4 at midnight, reporters David Lerman and Kathleen Hunter regaled readers with how the "Taliban Release Gives Republicans Fuel Beyond Benghazi." Some Democrats' concerns about Obama's actions in the freeing of Bowe Bergdahl were already known, including substantive issues of national security. But the Bloomberg pair limited the scope of Obama's problem with Dems to notification, while contending that "the demands for more information have come mostly from Republicans, some of whom already have declared their opposition to a deal whose details have yet to be fully disclosed."
The left-leaning New York Daily News also didn't get the memo that any criticism of Obama can only come from the right.
Perhaps the paper's outlook was affected by several horrific terrorist attacks carried out in their city and in DC in September of 2001.
The Daily News went after the president on its front page and in a scathing editorial.
First, the front page:
Now, excerpts from the editorial:
Surrender without honor
Obama swap with Taliban endangers the countryPresident Obama betrayed the highest obligation of his office — safeguarding national security — in trading five hard-core Taliban for the American serviceman who appears to have deserted in Afghanistan.
The five sworn enemies of the United States are now in the Gulf state of Qatar, where they are free to come and go as they like, beyond the watch of American agents. In just one year, they will be free to return to Afghanistan to fight there and stage terror attacks far beyond that country’s borders.
These facts were known to Obama when he made the deal, and yet he went ahead in irresponsible disregard for lives he has endangered. As the facts have emerged — and more surely will — it has become ever clearer that he lost his presidential compass in the Taliban swap.
... Eventually, the facts forced Obama to gesture at the truth he had sought to evade. “Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?” he asked. Answering himself, he said, “Absolutely. There’s a certain recidivism rate that takes place.”
Which is a fancy way of saying that freed Gitmo detainees have returned to warring on the U.S. Rest assured these five killers, close allies of Taliban head Mullah Omar, will do so with relish.
Worse, Obama ran roughshod over the law requiring 30 days’ notice to Congress of a Gitmo release — and, reported Time, “dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on top secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men.”
... (Obama) wants out (of Afghanistan) so badly that he accepted the Taliban’s terms, regardless of the threat to American security.
He is surrendering without honor.
For readers who missed it, the Time article mentioned in the editorial reports the following
Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.
How military officials put up with punk behavior like this is beyond me.
It has been delusional for some time to believe that Obama's only political opposition comes from partisan Republicans. One obvious example is long-standing union opposition to the EPA's war on coal. David Lerman and Kathleen Hunter at Bloomberg and other establishment press reporters clinging to this notion need to get a grip on reality before they professionally embarrass themselves to the point of no return.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
