Is there is a conservative response to “No Easy Day” book controversy?

Thought of the day:

When Wikileaks issued a zillion diplomatic documents, many conservatives called for Julian Assage to be arrested. When Obama gave details on the Osama Bin Laden raid, many conservative columnists said he was unlawfully giving away military secrets to bolster his re-election image. NOW we have the highly controversial book “No Easy Day’ written by the Navy Seal Team Six member who shot Bin Laden and was the one who took his photo. The alias-named author says he gave away no secret tactics yet the Pentagon says he did and that he failed to screen the book by them and that he broke his secrecy agreement.

What is the conservative perspective?

Is the author a whistle blower who wanted to set the public record straight against inaccurate facts that were put out in the media. Or is he is a military lawbreaker and leaker who just happens to gain from his leaks (although most profits going to charity). Watch the 60 minutes interview below.

  • Maximus

    Depends on what the Pentagon does.

  • Judahlevi

    I don’t know if there is an official “conservative” response, nor would I assume to be that voice. As a former US Marine, I have tremendous respect for what this individual sacrificed for his country and thank him for his service. For this service, and for risking his young life, he should be given the nation’s undying gratitude – not a witch hunt by the Pentagon.
    Unless further information shows that the ‘classified’ information revealed in the book was honestly harmful to our current military members, the Pentagon should back off. They let Obama’s White House get away with leaking secrets, the New York Times get away with leaking national security secrets, there should not be a double standard with this if the leaks are not that material.
    However, if the information leaked in the book is truly harmful to our national security, then he should be prosecuted (along with the individuals in the White House and any others). There is a need for real consequences when our national security secrets are revealed. He should not be prosecuted for the sole purpose that he did not allow the book to be vetted.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I would tend to agree with you, although at its heart your argument, while logical, is somewhat depressing.

      First, this used to not be a close call. Things had to be vetted for one simple reason, you cannot allow someone writing a book to be the determiner of what is and is not harmful. That anyone who released such a book without approval would be prosecuted regardless of whether or not it was actually harmful is the only way to stop such a thing. If you dont persue this course, you get into a situation where you have to reveal why something was harmful in court, and then all you are doing is revealing more secrets to our enemies.

      That said, lets face it, no one in the Obama administration is going to be prosecuted for anything. Where just a few short years ago we were apoplectic about Valerie Plame, a revelation that got no one killed, we are fairly passive with Wikileaks, which is documented to have gotten people killed, and the Obama administration leaks, which some have argued could lead to people getting killed.

      That the central argument for not prosecuting someone for security breaches is the fact that the administration itself has done much worse is a logical, if very depressing argument.

  • Oregonnative

    It is terrible of the double standard that our goverment has done. On and on we see that it is okay to be lied to by our officials that we hire and pay through our taxes. What is to be done about this. “Nothing” because over 50% of the people, because as long as the goverment promises free food (food stamps) and un-employment benefits, SSI benifits, by not seeking work or claiming they just can not function.
    What happen to the family unit ? What happen to our history that made America great ?
    Who knows and really who cares as long as you feed us, as really it is not our fault that we were born in this harsh society. it is our goverment fault and therefore we as a society are not responsible that…. just make up anything as long as I (we) do not have to function.

    • 3H

      I have some horrible, bad, news for you. Government lying to the people, and frequently not being held accountable, has a long dishonorable history that far predates any safety net benefits. The two issues are not related.

      In fact, America became great despite, or perhaps because of, dishonorable and immoral acts. The stealing of land from native Americans, the use of slave labor, the abuse of workers including children immediately come to mind. The list is sadly long.

      This is not to say that everything done in the United States, or done in the name of our country, has been dishonorable. But to pretend that somehow the United States is in moral decline and that at some point in the past we were a shining beacon of righteousness and honor is to simply be ignorant of your own history.

      • Judahlevi

        3h provides the “hate America” speech which dominates Democrats and the left. If you actually buy this tripe, then you would make a good leftist. Look at the beautiful woman and stare only any imperfection, not the whole.
        America is a wonderful country which has been a shining and unique example of religious tolerance, individual freedom, and a strong and vibrant capitalist economy. And yes, it is in danger of the America-haters turning it into another third world country by social bankruptcy.

        • 3H

          So, I noticed that there was no refutation by fact. That would be asking for too much.

          Sorry if dropping a little reality into the discussion upsets your little fantasy world. You realize how vacuous (and sexist) your metaphor really is, don’t you? Beauty is really only skin deep, and you’re too busy staring at the trappings of outside beauty to ponder what is really underneath.

          By the way, speaking of identity politics and religious freedom, it’s the Republican Party that is held in virtual thrall to the social conservatives who would love nothing better than to force “christian” values on everyone.

          • Judahlevi

            You seem to have a thing about “social conservatives.”
            Don’t like it when people disagree with you do you?
            Republicans come in all shapes, sizes, colors, genders, and positions on social issues. In other words, they are individuals. The old ‘theocracy’ scare really doesn’t work – but feel free to try it anyway.

          • 3H

            I have no problem when people disagree with me.. I just like some factual backing for that disagreement instead of vague platitudes.

            I wouldn’t worry about the social conservatives so much if it weren’t for the fact that Republicans feel the need to toady up to them. You can claim diversity all you want, but when you give a special place to people who fear and hate diversity well.. again… nothing but platitudes.

          • Judahlevi

            Your posts are full of facts? I didn’t think so.
            Social conservatives are part of “diversity.” Your intolerance and denigration of them is no different than their alleged intolerance. How are you better?

          • 3H

            Fact: slavery in the United States for the first 100 years. Fact: second class status for many of the descendants of slaves (and for slaves after they were freed)
            Fact: We stole lands from Native Americans.
            Fact: working conditions during the industrial revolution were, by and large, terrible. Child labor was routinely used.

            Opinion: I believe those to be more imperfections. I believe those acts to be dishonorable and immoral.

            Do you consider slavery moral? Or honorable? Do you consider theft to be moral. Or honorable?

            I am different than social conservatives because while I personally do not like what they stand for, I am more than willing to let them live their lives as they see fit. They do not have to like Gays. They don’t not have to get married to someone of the same sex. Their churches do not, and should not, be required to perform gay marriages. I

            The opposite cannot be said to be true. They desire, and advocate, legislation to force their “christian values” on me; I have no desire to require them to live by my values. That is the difference. That is what tolerance means to me.

            You talk about individual freedom. Where is the individual freedom when one group can require me to adhere to their values, when my actions do not infringe upon their right to follow their beleifs.

          • 3H

            Perhaps you can help me with something. You responded to my post by claiming that I am an American hater. Evidently acknowledging our history is a form of hate? And then you accuse me of not liking it when people disagree with me. Yet, your first response to me, when I said something you didn’t like, was accuse me of hating. See where I’m going with this? Sounds like you don’t like people disagreeing with you. Makes you sound a little hypocritical, don’t you think?