A quote:
More likely is that Pelosi was told about waterboarding in 2002 and didn’t view it as the great moral problem that currently vexes so many liberal commentators, who are trying to outdo one another in expressing just how outraged and ashamed they are of their country. That Pelosi would be nonchalant about the use of waterboarding seven years ago is hardly surprising. Despite the sanctimony now sweeping the nation’s capital and editorial pages, few Americans in 2002 would have batted an eye at the simulated drowning of Al Qaeda terrorists for the purpose of saving American lives (and, according to recent polls, the vast majority still wouldn’t lose sleep over it). Far easier now, on “a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009,” as Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in his self-contradictory contextualization of the recently released “torture memos,” to insist upon the criminalization of political differences.
Seriously?? "Sanctimony?" "Nonchalant?" Where on earth does he get off to be allowed to characterize people in this way? He seems to have gone through the thesaurus looking up adjectives to describe someone who happily doesn't care - he later uses "insousiance" (a word I have never before seen used in a newspaper).
Then, he asks this question which I find even more infuriating -
If people were legitimately concerned that we were going to be attacked again in 2002, how does Pelosi become absolved of responsibility but Bush lawyers are guilty of war crimes?
Because she wasn't the person making the policies, dumbass. Get your head out of your partisan tush and realize that truisms are true - With great power comes great responsibility. And the Bush administration had the greater power - thus, greater responsibility.
jackass.
I am enraged at the suggestion that in 2002 "few Americans would have batted an eye at [torture]". But even more enraged at the description of being for or against torture as a "political difference". Can't help you respond coherently, sorry.
ReplyDelete