Telling It Like It Is

[Adam's Apple]

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

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I have to agree with jillian, waterboarding isn't exactly a clarion moral calling to rally the base around.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Oh dear god, a supply-sider. Haven't they died out yet?

 

[Adam's Apple]

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.

Just like a lefty--questioning Republicans' moral principles while trying to foist another Clinton on the country.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Adam's Apple]

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.

 

[eots]

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.

hey guess what your both half right , both left and right party's are corrupt to the very core

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

youre right, lets give em all lawyers, and release all the terrorist thugs from guantanamo so they can plot more terrorist attacks against us

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.

 

[Shogun]

there is something to be said about not becoming what we hate.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

There is also something to be said about survival.

there is something to be said about not becoming what we hate.

 

[eots]

there is something to be said about not becoming what we hate.

that was a intelligent and thoughtful statement one minute its nuke em all the next...a voice of reason

 

[actsnoblemartin]

funny, i dont see mecca nuked.

I dont see iran nuked, nor egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.

Funny how facts get in the way.

Infact, the ones nuking iraq right now are al queda, and the u.s. military is stopping that nicely

that was a intelligent and thoughtful statement one minute its nuke em all the next...a voice of reason

 

[Foxfyre]

But if you have the power to save your loved one in peril of a terrible death or to save a school full of school children or multitudes of innocent people anywhere, do you use that power against one who holds the key for your being able to save them? Is that becoming what we hate?

You can't sidestep that question folks. Do we violate somebody's civil rights? Or condemn tens of thousands to death? As much as we want to pretend that we are more noble, more righteous, more civilized than other people on the planet, what do we do when the choice is between two things both of which are repugnant to us?

There is no rationale debate until we are willing to recognize the dilemma.

 

[eots]

funny, i dont see mecca nuked.

I dont see iran nuked, nor egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.

Funny how facts get in the way.

Infact, the ones nuking iraq right now are al queda, and the u.s. military is stopping that nicely

you missed the point....and allciaduh isnt nuking iraq

 

[Shogun]

There is also something to be said about survival.

SURVIVAL? at what point does 9/11 make you think that our culture will be destroyed because of any various attack? Did pearl harbor "destroy" America? Did Hirshima "Destroy" japan? The blank check excuse for vindictive retribution doesn't float if you insist on framing our side as "the good guys"


So, can we use chemical weapons too, Acts? Sure, we could dominate a major portion of the Earth "in the name of safety" but who is fooling whom?

 

[Shogun]

funny, i dont see mecca nuked.

I dont see iran nuked, nor egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.

Funny how facts get in the way.

Infact, the ones nuking iraq right now are al queda, and the u.s. military is stopping that nicely

eh? ground controool to Major Martin....

I don't see the wailing wall nuked either.. nor jerusalem. what's your point?

also, dude, "the ones nuking iraq right now"?

 

[Shogun]

But if you have the power to save your loved one in peril of a terrible death or to save a school full of school children or multitudes of innocent people anywhere, do you use that power against one who holds the key for your being able to save them? Is that becoming what we hate?

You can't sidestep that question folks. Do we violate somebody's civil rights? Or condemn tens of thousands to death? As much as we want to pretend that we are more noble, more righteous, more civilized than other people on the planet, what do we do when the choice is between two things both of which are repugnant to us?

There is no rationale debate until we are willing to recognize the dilemma.

Ok, I'll play...


If you want to retain the moral high ground then you cannot act just like those you have demonized.

Let me ask YOU then:


If you knew that OBL was hiding in a village full of muslim kids and grandmas and there was NO way to extract him out and the ONLY option was to nuke him and 500K innocent kids and grannies are you telling me that, in fear of another 9/11, you'd press the big red button?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Interesting questions, its what i come to expect from a brilliant mind like yours.

ok, ill tackle each one, one at a time.

SURVIVAL? at what point does 9/11 make you think that our culture will be destroyed because of any various attack?

Me: None, 9/11 did not destory us

You: Did pearl harbor "destroy" America?

You: Did Hirshima "Destroy" japan?

Me: no, but we did defeat them

You: The blank check excuse for vindictive retribution doesn't float if you insist on framing our side as "the good guys"

Me: i never said anything about a blank check, but we shouldnt go to the other extreme and let u.s. service men and women die just so we can can sleep good at night. Our armed forces cant fight with hands behind tied behind their backs. You cant try our servicemen, over any trivial infraction.

So, can we use chemical weapons too, Acts? Sure, we could dominate a major portion of the Earth "in the name of safety" but who is fooling whom?

me: Im not really sure what chemical weapons do, or if they are neccesary or not, im honestly not a weapons expert.

I do know we need bunker busting bombs, and must kill terrorists, even if they hide out in large civilian populations.