Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

A Great Point: Waterboarding Bad, But Shooting In The Head Good?

For the last several years the left in the U.S. have been beating this "anti-torture" drum. Now we know that liberals aren't very consistent. As I pointed out in my last post, Ann Coulter took heat for suggesting 10 years ago what the Obama administration did last week: invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders. However, they are really starting to look silly now.

President Bush in his autobiography admitted to approving Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be waterboarded in order to extract terrorist information from the 9/11 mastermind. Obama and his fellow liberals were outraged by this. After all, strapping someone down and pouring water over their face is akin, in their mind, to sticking needles under their fingernails. They seriously think that.

As the days following the bin Laden killing unfolded, the question began to be raised about whether enhanced interrogation tactics (IE waterboarding) had been used to find bin Laden. The answer was yes, it had been the result of Prsident Bush's okay of those tactics.

Then over the weekend, FoxNews' Chris Wallace asked another question. Why is it okay to shoot bin Laden in the head, but wrong to waterboard Kalid Shaikh Mohammed? Especially considering that the first couldn't have been accomplished without the second? -insert chirping crickets-

I am on record as applauding the taking out of bin Laden. It was a longtime in coming. What I don't understand is how liberals could applaud that (and they did) yet be so upset about the pouring of water over a terrorist's face. Amazing hypocrisy, even for the idiotic left in this country.

And Obama now refuses to stop the investigation, and possible prosecution, of CIA interrogators. Oh, but he'll bask in the glory of their efforts in that he gave the okay to take bin Laden out based on those interrogations. What a hypocrite.

1 comment:

daniel noe said...

I'm confused. Is killing always worse than torture? What is the meaning, then, of cruel and unusual punishment? Is it inconsistent to benefit from something you disapprove of, as Obama killing Osama benefitted from Bush's policies, as modern medicine benefitted from Nazi experiments, or as a libertarian-minded individual might accept government assistance as long as it is offered?