Just Whose Side Are We On?? *Open Thread*

This has been building and building and building since Obama has taken office. It started with Obama calling Cambridge police “Stupid” back in 2009. It continued when Obama REFUSED, and continues to refuse, to call the Fort Hood attack terrorism, literally requiring an Act of Congress to provide the honorifics and compensation for those who were killed or injured in that attack.

It didn’t stop there, of course. It continued when Obama, with the alleged deserter’s parents by his side in the Rose Garden, announced that he essentially exchanged a number of very senior terrorists in order to bring home the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl (and possible ally to terrorists).

Then there was the jumping on the bandwagon of Michael Brown against the police by Obama and AG Holder, sending White House representatives to HIS funeral, but sending not ONE to the funeral of US General , Harold Greene, assassinated in Afghanistan. Not one. Obama and Holder then weighed in on the Garner case, calling for calm, but doing NOTHING to stop the inciting of anger and animosity toward ALL police officers. In fact, Obama ratcheted up that animosity by going around claiming the disparate treatment of black people at the hands of cops completely denying the fact that in both Brown and Garner’s cases, THEY RESISTED ARREST. Instead, it is ALL on the Police, and how they need to change their ways to accommodate black people (and brown, Obama had to throw in, lest his base get pissy with him).

That support of protestors hyped up on nothing more than lies, rumor, hearsay, and inciting of violence by the likes of Al Charlatan, have now led to this in our streets (h/t Facebook friend):

WOW. Just wow. If I was a NYC police officer, I would insist that NO police officers take the streets to do their jobs, and let de Blasio, Obama, Holder, et al., reap the benefit of the animosity and violence they are sowing. But those folks who are willing to defend us from criminals won’t do that. They won’t allow their city to descend into chaos despite the threats against them because they have something Obama, Holder, de Blasio, and Sharpton cannot even begin to fathom: a sense of duty, and an integrity to protect.

Just recently, of course, we had the very flawed, very biased, US Senate report regarding the actions of the CIA with terrorists held somewhere abroad. As a result, we have a US Representative declaring we should APOLOGIZE to these terrorists for being mean to them, a la Hillary Clinton’s call to “empathize” – EMPATHIZE – with them.

And then, I saw the following story this morning. I was stunned when it was revealed just who withheld critical evidence in this Army Lieutenant’s trial. First a little background: Lt. Clint Lorance was sentenced for 20 years for ordering the shooting of Afghans racing toward his platoon on a motorcycle. At the time of his trial, it was claimed these men had NO ties to terrorists, and claimed it was a wrongful death. Just look at the comments people are making about Lt. Lorance in the comments at this News Military article. The attitude toward him is one of repugnance, anger, and hostility.

Not so fast though. This young man, this highly decorated Airborne officer, appears to be yet another victim of this Administration’s “Appeasement Campaign” toward Muslim extremists. Why do I say that? Because apparently, the Army withheld evidence that the two men who were killed did INDEED have ties to terrorists. Lorance’s attorney wrote the following to the Airborne Commander, Gen. Clarke, asking for clemency for his client as a result. From Military.com:

[…] “In plain language, this is not a case where a depraved soldier intended to kill indiscriminately. This is the case of a patriotic and loyal infantry officer who zealously sought to protect his paratroopers,” wrote the lawyer, John N. Maher of Chicago, in a clemency petition dated Aug. 15. Maher is a civilian lawyer in this case, but also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

Maher’s arguments include contentions that the evidence presented at the trial doesn’t support the convictions. He says the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury and that the lead defense lawyer at the court-martial did an inadequate job of presenting Lorance’s case.

The fatal shooting happened while Lorance was leading a foot patrol in a grape field. Berms in the field limited the Americans’ ability to see around them, Maher said.

One of the soldiers reported seeing three Afghan men heading toward them on a motorcycle. Lorance, who could not see the approaching men, ordered two soldiers to shoot.

[…]

After the shooting, soldiers searched the bodies but found no weapons, radios or cell phones, such as would often have been used by the Taliban to attack and coordinate their movements.

In an interview, Maher said that Army investigators were blocked by soldiers when they sought to visit the dead men’s village to try to learn who the dead men were and to examine the bodies.

In a follow-up letter to Clarke, dated Nov. 15, Maher said his review of the record and evidence indicates that the prosecutors failed in their legal responsibility to share all the collected evidence with the defense lawyers. The unshared evidence could have been used to undermine the credibility of witnesses who testified against Lorance, Maher said. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

In other words, the Army lawyers withheld evidence that was VITAL to the defense of Lorance from these charges. Why was it withheld? Given the track record of this Administration and Democrats, from how they treated the Fort Hood attack to releasing of terrorists from Gitmo to calling for apologies and empathy to our “enemies,” to how they are treating our police officers across the country, and more examples of all of the above than I have time to list here, just begs the question:

WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON ANYWAY??

If you ask me, it is getting harder and harder to tell.

This is an Open Thread.