A group of rogue US soldiers that referred to themselves as a “kill team” allegedly killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan and then posed for photographs with their victims. The US Army has now apologized for the incident after the German magazine SPIEGEL published several images from the “kill team” in its new issue on March 21, 2011. The Army has issued a statement declaring that the actions depicted in the photos as ” . . . repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States.” The photos were among several seized by Army investigators looking into the deaths of three unarmed Afghans last year.

Last year–on Obama’s watch.

This is definitely Obama’s Abu Ghraib or, simply, Obama Ghraib.  So why are so few people talking about it?

I’ve been waiting for the predominantly left wing media (LWM) to unanimously condemn the atrocities allegedly committed by the soldiers implicated in these horrendous crimes. I found a brief article in the New York Times buried in the “World” section under “Asia Pacific.”  I wonder how many people actually saw it.

There is a slightly more detailed article in the Wall Street Journal,  and Yahoo News posted a article with a surprisingly negative hook (A U.S. kill team’s trophy photos: More damaging than Abu Ghraib?).  An article in the Anchorage Daily News revealed one of the alleged members of the “Kill Team” was an enthusiastic hockey player who was on the same team as Sarah Palin’s son, Track. But compared to the LWM’s frenzied coverage of the Abu Ghraib scandal, so far the media coverage on this atrocity has been muted, indifferent.  Hot Air points out that

[w]hen the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.

I suspected back then that the aforementioned “shock” and “revulsion” expressed by the LWM was insincere and opportunistic. My suspicions have been validated.