Time for GOP Backbone and Leadership By David Limbaugh November 5, 2007 This latest "torture" flap concerning Judge Michael Mukasey's attorney-general nomination raises an important question. Why do Republicans always let liberals co-opt the moral high ground and back them into a corner where their only escape is to prove they are as "compassionate" as liberals? If Republicans are serious about reestablishing themselves as the dominant party, they should recapture their moral courage and start defending principles they claim to believe in. The Republicans' timidity shows up on a wide array of issues, from Social Security to torture, where they're on the defensive and apologetic, and they allow the liberals' revisionist "facts" to become "conventional wisdom." for full article: http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/11/new_column_time_4.html
Defend moral principles they believe in?? Like torture? Maybe *that's* why you lose the moral high ground. It's the position, not the execution of it.
I have to agree with jillian, waterboarding isn't exactly a clarion moral calling to rally the base around.
Just like a lefty--questioning Republicans' moral principles while trying to foist another Clinton on the country.
You think torture is a moral pinciple? Me? I think it's *immoral* and I don't care who's doing it. But thanks for proving my point.
How did I prove your point, Jillian? How is your point proven by pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats judging Republicans' moral principles when they are so lacking in moral principles themselves? How ironic is it that Democrats see nothing at all wrong with destroying-- under the most horrifying circumstances imaginable--a tiny, defenseless unborn child but can cry all kinds of tears and express their deepest concerns that enemy combatants might get roughed up during U.S. interrogations (but these enemy combatants always survive with their lives/limbs intact, I might add). As has been pointed out countless times re the rule of law and the WOT, rules of law pertaining to countries at war do not apply to terrorists/ theocratic radicals who wear no identifiable uniforms, serve under no flag, and fight for no country.
The issue isn't as simple as saying that one doesn't condone torture whether that be waterboarding or anything else. The issue is in the propriety of forcing a candidate for any public position to state a position no matter what the circumstances. One illustration was beautifully demonstrated in the movie, "Guarding Tess". Former First Lady Tess (Shirley McLaine) had been kidnapped and was possibly in mortal danger. Her head Secret Service guard (Nicholas Cage) determined that the government issued chauffeur knew who had her and where she was. The chauffeur, in the hospital after wrecking the limo (courtesy of Tess) wasn't talking, so the secret service guy shot off his toe right in the hospital. He was taking aim at the second toe when the chauffeur decided to cooperate. They rescued tess, buried alive, in the nick of time. Now then, let's say our Homeland Security guys know for certain that a large dirty bomb has been planted somewhere in a heavily populated public area. If it explodes, tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children will be killed, maimed, and/or subjected to fatal or harmful radiation or chemicals. They have a guy in custody and they know he knows where it is. How humanely should they treat this guy? Are his human rights more valuable than those tens of thousands? Is water boarding inflicted on one terrorist thug really more savage than allowing him to kill those tens of thousands? However much we don't want to envision such a scenario, it could happen. And it is for this reason it is folly to impose impossible rules on those charged with protecting our lives. Along with provisions for watch dogs to enforce it, our policy to not treat prisoners inhumanely should be sufficient.
youre right, lets give em all lawyers, and release all the terrorist thugs from guantanamo so they can plot more terrorist attacks against us
