His verbiage militates against comprehension

By Chrissy the Hyphenated

Click graphic to embiggen for easier reading.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2882997490056011884HvMvSY

In his defense, the question was awful:

“What message do you have for American men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions, like the very risky one to capture and kill bin Laden, about what they should do in the event that they capture someone alive?  And does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field, rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the U.S. of the intelligence that they could provide?”

The first part is clear enough. “What should they do if they capture someone alive?”

But … excuse me? You need the CINC to tell them to handcuff prisoners and bring them in? Every kid who watches cop shows knows THAT. Duh.

As for the second part … puh-leeze. Who ever said there was a lack of clear procedures? Our troops capture people all the time. They have procedures. Duh.

The stated assumption that there IS a lack of clear procedures is like asking, “When you beat your wife, do you use a belt or a stick?”

Assuming the question was real, not canned (and that Obama didn’t have a canned response prepared), the moderators should’ve clarified the question before putting it to the president to answer off the cuff.

Maybe then we would’ve gotten a clear answer. Or maybe he’s just one of those people who talks too much because he isn’t as bright as he wants everyone to think he is.

I wrote an answer that is a tenth as long as the one he gave:

“I don’t need to instruct our troops since they already have very clear procedures for how to subdue and transport prisoners and for when it is legally permissible to use lethal force.”

Of course, the possibility exists that Obama pre-selected that absurd dual question precisely so he could give his equally absurd answer. But one would have to be cynical enough to think that Barack Hussein was the type to try and pretend he was telling both the Left and the Right what each wanted to hear.

Oh wait. I am that cynical. Well, pshaw. I’ve got cause.

Anyway, I think both the question and the answer were not actually about telling our troops what procedures should be used or worrying if they might be trigger happy. I think they were both speaking to the widely held suspicion that Obama himself is encouraging assassination rather than capture of terrorists.

It’s a valid suspicion, given that his kill vs. capture rate is higher than Bush’s was and the Left thought Dubya’s was evidence that he was a blood-thirsty murderer.

Also, one cannot help but notice that live terrorists who are being interrogated and detained at Gitmo are beneficial only to our national security.  For a Democrat president who hollered long and loud about how eeeevil Gitmo was and how he would shut it down the MINUTE he got into office (but didn’t), they are nothing short of a political nightmare.

Suspecting Obama is ordering suspected terrorists be assassinated in the field is a pretty horrible thing.

Unfortunately, his recently announced Afghanistan withdrawal schedule supports the cynical suspicion that he wholeheartedly puts his own political career at the top of his priority list and our national security at the bottom.

A)  His own generals oppose the plan.

B)  The drawdown is timed for the months directly preceding the 2012 election.

C)  He knows he can count on the Left Stream Media to provide him with lots and lots of positive, free — “Oh look the troops are coming home! Rah rah, Obama!” — pre-election news coverage.

Like I said, I’ve got cause to be cynical.

———-

Full transcript of question and answer:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/press-conference-president

QUESTION: “What message do you have for American men and women in uniform who are undertaking missions, like the very risky one to capture and kill bin Laden, about what they should do in the event that they capture someone alive?  And does the lack of these clear procedures raise the risk that forces might be more inclined to kill suspected terrorists in the field, rather than capture them alive, thus depriving the U.S. of the intelligence that they could provide?”

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, my top priority in each and every one of these situations is to make sure that we’re apprehending those who would attack the United States; that we are getting all the intelligence that we can out of these individuals, in a way that’s consistent with due process of law; and that we try them, we prosecute them, in a way that’s consistent with rule of law.

And, frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation.  And there are going to be sometimes where a military commission may be appropriate.  There are going to be some times where Article III courts are appropriate in terms of prosecution.  And we do have a process to work through all the agencies — Department of Defense, Department of Justice, FBI, anybody else who might be involved in these kinds of operations — to think through on a case-by-case basis how a particular individual should be dealt with.

And I think that when it comes to our men and women in uniform who might be carrying out these missions, the instructions are not going to be based on whether or not the lawyers can sort out how we detain them or how we prosecute them.  Their mission is to make sure that they apprehend the individual; they do so safely with minimum risk to American lives.  And that’s always going to be the priority, is just carrying out the mission.  And that message is sent consistently to our men and women in uniform anytime they start carrying out one of these missions.

But I think it’s important to understand, and the American people need to be assured that anytime we initiate a mission like this, our top priorities are making sure this person is not able to carry out attacks against the United States and that we’re able to obtain actionable intelligence from those individuals.  And so that mitigates against this danger that you’re suggesting that our main goal is going to be to kill these individuals as opposed to potentially capturing them.  Okay?