The idiom goes, "Give X enough rope and he'll hang himself." The only problem with this is that the "hanging" part generally implies consequences to the individual or group due error made. It used to be true. But with the left in Obama's America, there are no consequences for anything short of murder, and even then it's kind of iffy.
The 2008 presidential campaign was laden with proclamations, promises and scoldings from candidate Obama pertaining to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (intentionally incorrectly called "torture" in the attempt to inspire moral outrage in people who often wouldn't know moral outrage if it lit them on fire) and the existence of the Guantanamo Bay "can't try you and can't let you go" prison in Cuba. We were pontificated to repeatedly that America is better than this, that we can't do such things, these "torture techniques" don't work, that these detainees were due a trial (because candidate Obama didn't understand the difference between a criminal and a combatant, a distinction apparently still lost on his Attorney General Eric Holder), and so on ad nauseam.
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the Moral High Ground. President Obama quietly decided not to close Guantanamo Bay (although Holder still insists he's going to do it). With only a couple of detainees having gone to trial, the administration has decided military tribunals weren't such a bad idea after all. And to ice the stupid-cake, it turns out that if the Bin Laden assassination isn't a hoax (no pictures, no body, take my word for it disloyal subjects!), apparently it was those enhanced interrogation techniques that led to locating him.
How embarrassing. Putting water up the noses of mass murderers and fighters whose goal is the downfall of the United States of America as a nation actually led to the downfall of public enemy #1. It wasn't supposed to work, at least that was the constant sermon at the Church of the One. In fact, a local talk show this morning read an article in which an interrogated combatant recommended that the interrogators use the waterboarding technique if they wanted to get the information!
But something has been lost in all the excitement. As Obama does his 90th "not spiking the footbal" victory lap, no one seems to have noticed that the president who said we can't put water in their noses signed the order to put a bullet in Bin Laden's eye. I mean, isn't that a little harsh? Shouldn't we have arrested him and sent him to a prison with prayer rugs, copies of the Qu'ran and no offensive American flags in sight? What about the right to a criminal trial? I mean, just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, right?
The inconsistency of the concept of morality on the left is never more apparent than when the left sees itself as victorious. When it does, it is nearly without fail because it did something it demanded the right should never do and should be prosecuted for if it ever did. The left will tell you all day long something is wrong, until they're the ones doing it. Waterboarding killed zero terrorists. Barack Hussein Obama signed an order that resulted in the execution of Osama Bin Laden, whether you think it should have happened or not.
Rapid Intra-ocular Lead Projectile Incursion. Now THAT's torture. But don't fret, I'm sure AG Holder is investigating the actions of Navy Seal Team Six and preparing indictments as we speak.
The change in Obama's policy was incredible when he took office. I think that there are good reasons for the things you mentioned and our continued presence in the Middle East, but the public can't know about them for security reasons. That's why on the outside, Obama and others can speak against those things, but when they are in charge, they carry on just like the others have. Obama was very anti-military, but now he's pro-military (mostly). That's probably because he realized that we need one. Without all the details, the public can't prove that we need one, but once one inherits the situation, it is apparent that the military is necessary.
ReplyDeleteEither that, or the military is controlling Obama. That's what some insiders say.
My suspicion is that our continued presence in the middle east will result in the completion of the hardcore Islamicization of the region. What's hard to guess is if this is an intentional thing or not. I can't imagine being an atheist or agnostic Israeli right now.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama is a lot less pro-military than pro-military-making-me-look-good.
In the end, it's hard to really guess what's going on, and that's frustrating. But the 180s are entertaining and show just how ignorant the man was as a candidate, and how terrifyingly gullible slightly over half the electorate was as well.
You're confusing me....are you pro-military or anti?
ReplyDeletePro or anti-military completely misses it and I think that's why you're confused. I am completely in support of the military. I'm a veteran myself, and I know how it works. Sometimes your stuck, however, in a situation of having to give perfect obedience to perfect idiots.
ReplyDeleteOBL forfeited any rights he had to anything the day he took credit for 911. He knew that. I have no issue with the Seals who took him out, nor do I think they did anything wrong. 911 was an act of war, they removed the enemy commander under orders. The order to terminate Bin Laden was approved by Congress in the early going, might be 2003, I'm not sure. What's got me bugged is this administration's handling of it.
First of all, why not release the photos? Has nothing to do with not wanting to incite the Muslim street, or he wouldn't have done the victory laps. I firmly believe that he has not released the photos because of what they show, not who they show. Some congressmen have now seen them and one let the cat out of the bag and confirmed my suspicion. He said brains were hanging out the eye socket. Bin Laden was shot in the back of the head.
We have been told the order was capture or kill, but the pictures would have shown otherwise, that the order was kill in place and retrieve the body. Bin Laden was obviously not a threat or resisting very effectively if he was shot in the back of the head. He should have been captured and interrogated. (Don't get me wrong, after he was interrogated he should have been executed by firing squad.) And there is the problem. How do you interrogate Bin Laden? Why, you have to use those icky enhanced interrogation techniques or the information will get stale while he holds out on your dorky good cop bad cop routine.
This president went so far to make believe that Islamist terrorism is only individual criminals sometimes acting together as criminals that capturing Bin Laden became impossible because he would have had to follow his own rules and treat him like an American criminal. Where could you get a jury in America? You couldn't. He'd either have had to admit he was wrong about it all and use a military tribunal or let him go because he couldn't get a fair trial. Or hand him over to the international court, which would probably cause outrage never seen in this country. In other words, I suspect that it's very possible that Obama had Bin Laden executed so as not to harm his re-election chances, even if it meant losing whatever intel could have been gained from Bin Laden. You can guess what I think of that so I don't have to put it in print.