April 25, 2009
The Interrogation Memos and the 'Moral Bearings' of President Obama
President Obama made a striking statement after his partisan and security-jeopardizing decision to release post 9/11 memos on the Bush administration’s policies relating to interrogation of terrorists. Classifying “waterboarding” as unlawful torture, Obama self-righteously proclaimed that the United States lost its “moral bearings” under the previous administration.
That wonderful institution of malpractice and fraud, the “mainstream” press put it this way:
“President Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost ‘our [sic] moral bearings’ with use of the tactics.”Using the word “gruesome” to describe (former) U.S. interrogation policy in context of terrorism doesn’t quite cut it. Simulated drowning isn’t nice, but it’s not torture. (It is effective though, having saved American lives with information coughed up from use of the tactic.) “Gruesome,” on the contrary, describes the scene of red American blood gushing onto the sword-wielding terrorist as he callously chops off his victim’s head.
Watching Obama destroy the country and weaken national security as the so-called mainstream news media cover for him is torture.
Incidentally, the bloody tactic commonly referred to as “partial birth abortion” in which the “doctor” pushes, with the intent to cause death, a sharp instrument into the almost-born baby’s head makes the cut in describing the word “gruesome.”
And speaking of losing “our moral bearings,” as Obama charged, referring to policies that contributed heavily in preventing post 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, it appears that Obama lost his moral bearings years ago.
After all, with a moral compass in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama was pointed to the far, far left. That may or may not explain Obama’s voting record with respect to the gruesome, immoral practice of partial birth abortion -- it just might be that the President’s conscience has been seared to the point of putting politics over innocent life. Actually, I have no idea why or how anyone could vote to allow such depraved “family planning” tactics.
But there’s more. As W. Todd Huston reports:
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a ‘person’ that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a ‘neutrality clause’ that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.
As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal ‘neutrality clause’ was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the very bill he voted against in 2003.
As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal ‘neutrality clause’ was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the very bill he voted against in 2003.
It defies imagination that someone possessing the moral bearings of Barack Obama would have the audacity to bring moral accusations against the very men and women who kept the country safe for seven consecutive years following 9/11.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Remembering Trump's Journey
- Will Trump be a Titan Worthy of McKinley?
- Biden Handlers Announce New Regime
- Smoke Clears to Reveal LA’s DEI Follies
- The U.S. Should Claim Territory in Antarctica
- Has the Storm Arrived?
- I Prefer Toxic Masculinity to Deadly D.E.I. Incompetence
- How Mike Johnson Fumbled the Question of Biden's Senility
- Today, Truth Will Rapidly Begin To Replace Lawfare’s Lies
- The Great Man Returns
Blog Posts
- The dark side of Europe's energy devolution
- Trump II: initial observations of a new reality
- The new dawn is here
- All in the family
- If Trump wants to acquire Greenland, he needs to act immediately
- The truth is: It's up to us to recognize the truth
- My unlikely TikTok stardom and America's national security
- A wife's smile illuminates the Inauguration
- President Trump’s inaugural speech was excellent
- Restore the rule of law: pardon them all
- The petty party is now the pity party
- Biden ends his presidency with hypocritical and terribly dangerous pardons
- AOC has laid the foundation for Trump to sue her for defamation
- Hamas: The psychopathic and the soulless
- Musk is the last best hope for Europe’s survival