Can someone please show me where it is written that it’s morally superior to incinerate someone from 35,000 feet than it is to give them an inverted bathtub scrub down? Don’t get me wrong. I’m perfectly fine with having arm chair flyboys turning goat humpers into charcoal briquettes from the safety of a console that can later be used to pickup Monday Night Football. However, it’s hard to collect usable intel from ashes.
Democrats are currently running around making fools of themselves whining about the “evil Bush/Cheney regime” and their torturous ways while referencing a report containing information that is as old as Ed Shultz hairstyle and just as partisan. The reality is that anyone possessing an IQ level above that of a turnip can easily recognize this as nothing more than yet another media induced political distraction. It doesn’t surprise me to see more media misdirection though. After all, it only took NBC 46 days to finally admit that Obamacare architect Jonathon Gruber is nothing but a loud mouthed dim wit with MIT credentials.
The truth about all this supposed torture is that I don’t think most Americans mind. If it weren’t so politically incorrect I would even venture far enough to say that silently most even cheer it. After all, it’s hard not to maintain moral superiority over an enemy that beheads aid workers, stones women for simply wanting an education, and executes innocent children as heretics, even those young enough that their theological persuasion has yet to reach beyond their mother’s teat.
Only a fool believes that such a thing as a sanitized war exists. Personally, I’m not a big fan of war, but at the same time I’m even less a fan of watching 3,000 people evaporate for the simple sin of showing up for work on time on a sunny September morning. The reality is that the only moral rule of war is that you should only go to war for the sole purpose of winning even if it requres any means necessary. In that same vane you should only ask the military to carry out the role that all militaries are built for which is to kill people and break things. Leave the peacekeeping concept and moral compass guilt to the politicians who AREN’T getting shot at.
There are liberal elitist that love to blame everything on the
Like it or not we are facing an enemy that is pure evil. They don’t want to compromise. They don’t want to understand us or be our friend. Nor do they want to negotiate with infidels. They only want one thing, which is to collect their virgins by making the rest of us perish. Therefore, the very idea that White House wannabe Hillary Clinton would naively suggest that we should forego any possible tools that will lead us to victory and instead show “empathy for our enemies” makes about as much sense as walking through a den of starving lions while wearing Lady Gaga’s infamous meat dress.
It’s impractical to fight the good fight by bounding your own hands against an unrestrained enemy. The true moral outrage is when we put good people in harms way by exposing this ridiculous report. There’s no such thing as a fair fight in a struggle that involves life and death so enough with putting people in peril for the sole purpose of political posturing. Personally, I don’t care if we utilize the Bush approach of gathering intel one ripped out finger nail at a time at the same time we also use Obama’s more politically correct route of delivering 500 pound “care packages” from on high, just as long as the end result is that evil always loses and good people survive. In the mean time Hillary can lecture us all she wants on her own version of moral diplomacy. However, I would strongly suggest she not get caught in the cross hairs when the practical diplomacy arrives.