Obama Would Not Use Waterboarding To Save Manhattan From a Nuclear Bomb

You say that Obama has never said what the headline says he said? Yes, he did. The AP/AT&T/Yahoo headline tonight is this:


"Obama: Waterboarding is torture"


Ah, but that is ot all he has said. He has said lthat the United States of America should NEVER use "torture". That meeans that Obama has said that he would not approve of "waterboardng" to SAVE NEW YORK CITY (or at least Manhattan) if we had solid intelligence information that a nuclear bom ws going tobe set off in Manhattan in four hours, and that we had in custody a man who knew the location of that bomb.


You say that is a ridiculous hypothetical? Well, you are a FOOLL, aren't you. It is a more reasonable, and possible, hypotthetical than MNAY aseked by the mainstream media al of teh time. Further,m it is merely one example of many. For example, what if we had INTELLIGENCE 9as, to an extent we did, wihout knowing it) taht airplanes were going to be flown into the World Trade Center in the next few days, and we had a person IN CUSTODY how we believe knew all about the plan. Shut down all air travel, based on mere UNVERIFIED intelligence? Sure, wec could have tried to lamp down on "security", and surely would have. But was there TIME? If lyou KNOW that "waterboarding" is available, and is effective to get information FAST (wtihout ANY injury to the person being interrogated), would you not try i.t? I would not even hesitate, although I would NOT "ask" for a Presidential "order" if I were in the CIA. I would just DO it!!!! In effect, that is what we did--although with some kind of an authorization. The CIA "waterboarded" (WITHOUT inury) TERRORISTS (shortly after 9/11) who were thought to have INFOMRATIN about IMMEDIATE TERRORIST TARGETS AND PLANS (other possible 9/11 attacks). We evidently waterboarded something like THREE people


You may gather that I don't consider this one of the MJAOR "issues' of our time. So afar as I know, NO ONE, is "advocating" tahtt we routinely "waterboard" all terrorist "suspects" taht we capture. Among other things (like being unnecessarily cruel, for no real reason), this would be a waste of time and effort. Thus, we are automatically talking about EXTRAODINARY ("not ordinary", for you leftists out there, and "conservatives' intimideated by leftists into impossible positionis) situations. That is why the "hyopthetical" about a "ticking bomb" in Manhattan (really, it would not even have to be nuclear), is a perfectly reasonable question. It is OBAMA, and some of the Repubicans in that foreign plicy debate (as McCain before lthme) who are UNREASONVNABL


So Obama, and those Republicans, would NEVER use "waterboarding"? Goodbye Manhattan. You say that is "too extreme" and unlikely an example? What is it you do not understand, or remember, about 9/11 AND all of those media "scare stories" about a "dirty bomb" coming in thrugh our "insecure "ports". (So help me, these people--mainstream media--really are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs or for.) Once you admit, as you MUST admit (or expose yourself as a fool), that there are SOME circumstances--however "extreme"--that justify "waterboarding", then it is merely a matter of WHAT circumstances. That is the ONLY "issue"--not the ridiculous idea (which should DISQUALIFY a person from being Presdient of the United States) that we should NEVER use "waterboarding". Let me tell you why Obama, and the leftists he was catering to, wanted to "define" waterboarding as "torture". It was to LABEL George W. Bus as a WAR CRIMINAL--a person who committed "crimes against humanity". Yep. It was really, always, an ANTI-AMERICAN positon--trying to label America as "evil' because of a FEW people being waterboarded (without nay permanent injury).


Is "waterboarding" torture"? That depends on your definition of "torture", doesn't it? And it is IRRELEVANT. I am serious. A rose, by any other name, is still a rose. "Waterboarding" is WHAT IT IS, and to trly to suggest that "defining" it as "torture' determines whether it should be used is STUPID. The "issue" is NOT whther "waterboarding" is "torture". The ISSUE is whether "waterboarding" (that very specific interrogation technique) is "beyond the pale" for a "civilized" nation to use (in extraordinary circumstances). To me, this is a no brainer. If lyu have an interrogation technique that cause NO INJURY, and you are jusing to get INFORMAITON (not a absolutely useless "confession"), then I seeabsolutely no reason not to use it. Otherwise, GOODBYE MANHATTAN. And that is exactly what Obama and those cowardly Republicans are sayign: GOODBYE MANHATTAN (if it ever comes to that).


Why does the media never ask this question: "You mean yhou would not use waterboarding if a nuclear bomb was in Manhattan, and you had credible information it was gong to be set off in 4 hours? " Come on. You KNOW this one. The reason this question is never asked is because it is EMBARRASSING to those who like to get up there ad say "waterboarding" is "torture", and that they are too "civilized" to ever approve of "torture". Notice taht the "issue" of whether "waterboardign" WORKS is an entirely DIFFERENT "issu". Thre would appear to be conclusive evidence it does wrok. But if it does NOT work, then we should not use it for THAT reason (not because it is "torture"). Why would you EVER use an interrogation technique that did not work, ever? Again, the question i whether WATERBOARDING works, NOT whether "torture" works. That is a very specific questin, which has NOTHING to do with whether you "define" waterboarding as "torture" or not.


Segue to "Dirty Harry": the Clint Eastwood movie. You may remember that the evil villain had BURIED a girl, with maybe an HOUR of air left when "Harry" caught the villain. "Harry" had INJURED the viallain (shooting him, if iI remember correctly). When he caught him,, "harry"--of curse''asked him where the BURIED girl (running out of air) was. The untcase villain refused to tell. What did "Dirty Harry" do? He "tortured" the villain by STEPPING on his wounded leg (or arm or whatever). This resulted in the villain disclosing the information. However, the girl was already dead (asphixiation). Was "Dirty Harry" "wrong"? I find it hard to say he was. If I thought it would WORK (as I think waterboarding often DOES work, if dne right), then I have no heitancy at all in enocrsing "Dirty Harry's" action, In that particular case, I don't see any reason to believe it would "work". Seill, if I were THERE, in that situation, would I have given it a try (and lie about it later--especailly if it did ot work)? I think I would. More seriously, I think I HOPE I would (reather than be "afraid" of the "conseauences" to me personally). Look at all of those sanctimouious hypocrites ready to lynch JOe Paterno ("lynching" beindg something not limited to a black man, like Hreman Cain). Would you peole reallly say that Joe Patero "should have done more" upon pain of being condemned for all time, and still say that "Drity Harry" shoud hafve LEFT A GIRL TO DIE, GASPING FOR AIR IN AN UNDERGROUND GRAVE, WHILE YOU DID NOTHING? And that is not even as serious a situation as weface with terrorists, where thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people may be DED because lyou are too "snensitive' to use waterboarding (worrying more about you "sensibilities" than about those thousands of peoiple about to DIE, even though waterboarding does not injure anyone).


Then there was Janet Reno. Remember Waco (where Bill Clinton "led from behind"). Remember when the GOVERNMENT subjected the people inside that compaound to LOUD NOISES constantly, wihth the specific intnent to "torture" them (not alow them to seep, and to grate on their nrves? Was that "torture"? Well, the hypocrites of the mainstream media hardly asked that quesiotion. But it was certainly a valid question, as to AMERICAN CITAIZENS with Constitutional rights. Again, it is a questin of definition. And whether you call it "torture" or not has NOTHING to do with whether it should have been done (again, my main pproblem iwith it being that it DID NOT WORK, and really was not remotely likely to "work").


No. I find this whole MEDIA questin: "Is waterboarding torture?", to be ABSURD. It is a meaningless question, and totally a matter of arbitrary definition. Yep. If I were a candidate, I would REFUSE to answer that questin, on this very gound, and state that the ISSUE is whether waterboaarding is an acceptable technique, undear EXTRAORDINARY circumstances.


You know where I stand. Unless I had PROOF it did not work, I have no broblem with it in "extreme" circumstances (like right after 9/11, or the Manhattan bomb, or some other major attack in motion, where a terrorist in our hands who we RASONBALY belive has knowledge, rather than just using waterboarding as a "fishing" technique on hundreds of people). Thos who disagree with me would say I am approving of "torture", and am not a "civiliized" uman being. I counter with the assertion that THEY (those who sanctimoniously label me a "torturer") are NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT becaue they can't reason their way out of a paper bag. It is THEY who are willing ot connive in MURDER, even if there is a NON-INJURIOUS technique that could lprevent the murders. It is THEY who are worse thatn Joe Paterno ever thougyht about being, in willing to SACRIFICE peole to their own "sensibilities".


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as always (bad eyesight).