Murder at 1600… Liberal Hypocrites Endorse the Death Penalty

| June 5, 2012

When one chooses to write about liberal hypocrisy, the choices are seemingly unlimited. The other day I wrote about the double standard of Democrats requiring photo identification to attend their events while simultaneously opposing such a requirement for American voters. Now, in a recent column, Charles Krauthammer points to even more egregious hypocrisy at the pinnacle of the party. Entitled, “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior,” Krauthammer’s column notes that the very same liberals who were furious with the Bush Administration for torturing terrorists for essential intelligence are now quietly acquiescent regarding the Obama Administrations killing of same, seemingly on presidential whim, without review by any other authority and with absolutely no legal safeguards afforded to those so targeted.

As a soldier, I have never understood the Left’s frothing outrage at inflicting mere pain on an enemy combatant to obtain intelligence which might save friendly lives, while at the same time they take a rather antiseptic attitude toward the actual killing of the same enemy. I have always been similarly puzzled by that same odd outrage being directed at American troops, who in moments of ill-advised jubilation following victory in combat, may desecrate the body of someone who mere minutes before was most likely doing his determined best to reverse the circumstances. You have killed them, taken from them that which is the most precious human attribute they possess: life; and yet, according to the confused morality of liberals, it is an atrocity, possibly a war crime, for you to disrespect a dead husk of immediately decaying flesh from which, even most world religions concur, the human spirit has departed. While I would not encourage such demonstrations, I can see where they are the grunts’ somewhat more prosaic celebration of prevailing in a deadly contest of will, skill and courage, akin to a jet jockey’s victory roll after he’s just vaporized an entire enemy unit with a smart bomb. All the victims are equally dead with the main difference being that the grunts’ have bodies to bury while the jet jockey has a celebratory cerveza or two back at the base or aboard the carrier.

When presented with this moral contradiction, liberals, having no rational explanation for their irrational outrage, tend to splutter something to the effect that, “We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We don’t stoop to the behavior of our enemies.” None of which explains why it’s okay to kill them but not okay to torture them or disrespect their spiritless corpses. Nor is their Pollyanna view true; combat is a very brutal endeavor and American warriors fighting for their lives can be every bit as, and even more brutal, than those they are fighting. That same apple-cheeked kid from Iowa who hands out candy to the children in every village is also capable of blasting a mujahedeen into Paradise without a second thought. That capability to quickly transform from kindness to killing is one reason why we win far more battles than we lose. We are in fact, every bit as merciless on the battlefield as our adversaries. Any military force that doesn’t meet brutal force with even more brutal force is doomed to defeat. As I have written before on American Thinker, combat is not a game and in battle there is no such thing as fair, a concept for losers.

That we didn’t torture prisoners at all in the World Wars, or Korea, or Vietnam is, to put it politely, pure poppycock. While perhaps not a standard practice, torture, or rigorous interrogation was used when conditions demanded it. That was certainly the case in my war, Vietnam, where some enemy prisoners, especially those captured in an ongoing battle, were interrogated rigorously, on the spot, to obtain critically needed information regarding the strength and disposition of the forces opposing us. Did I turn a blind eye and become complicit with my silence? You bet I did. Have I ever once in the four ensuing decades regretted it? Not a chance. Did I witness desecration of enemy corpses? Again, you bet I did. One of the battalion commanders in my brigade whose radio call sign was Gunfighter and who toted a non-issue six shooter, famously had hatchets distributed to certain of his units to be used for the same purposes as American Indians had used tomahawks. They were put to work immediately and enthusiastically to instill terror in our enemy, until Westmoreland’s staff learned of the practice and ordered them confiscated. By that time though there were American paratroopers openly sporting necklaces of human ears. Grisly? Yes, but also the harsh reality of ground combat.

And no, I really don’t have any lingering regrets about that either. I saw far more evidence of torture and desecration committed by the Viet Cong and NVA against their own civilian populace than we ever inflicted upon them. It is those mental images of dead, defiled young women and children, of old mama sans and papa sans brutally tortured and disfigured before being killed that remain with me all these long years later.

So perhaps you’ll understand why, with that kind of grounding in reality, I’m with Krauthammer on this issue. Liberal Democrats, loudly condemning torture while simultaneously condoning their anointed leader to have a free, completely unaccountable hand in doling out death from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to foreign (so far) terrorists, and, as Charles notes, sometimes their non-combatant families, have taken hypocrisy to a new lethal level. Obama’s campaign team in releasing such information in an effort to lend some badly needed macho to their dear leader’s wimpy image may have taken ineptitude to a new level as well; perhaps not lethal but possibly politically fatal.

And a closing thought as I anticipate a chorus of objection from many of the conservative readers here who tend to think like liberals on this particular issue of torture: one of the primary differences between conservatives and liberals is the ability of most conservatives to face the world as it is and deal with it, while liberals see life as it should be and maintain a constant state of angst because it is not as they wish.

And never will be…

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hondo

Given insipid’s overreaction to the previous article, I’d guess he’s gonna love this one. (smile)

OWB

No disagreement here!

We realists understand that war is literally hell and we try to avoid it whenever possible. But we also believe that there are circumstances that war is not avoidable and that we must be prepared at all times to wage war.

A concept that the so-called anti-war crowd will never acknowledge is that we are ALL anti-war! Some of us are mature enough to understand that there are others who will force us to defend ourselves from time to time. At that point it becomes a numbers game – do what it takes to end the conflict thus reducing the number of casualties. To do otherwise simply increases the amount of death and destruction.

Steadfast&Loyal

For me the reason LIberals can have this opposing logic is that they can’t admit that evil people exist and that bad things happen to people.

THey don’t want to face it. I see this with my sister (a die hard liberal). She has no issue with “helping” people as long as it doesn’t mean taking from her wallet. She will pine and moan about how many people need help but when questioned further she doesn’t want to go see it. Be there to do it.

It is far easier in a liberals mind to let someone else do it. Then they can go on blissfully unaware of the barbarians at the gate. They don’t really want to help they just want to know that it is being done. For a liberal that’s about it. I can see how that mindset is applied to war. As long as soldiers aren’t fighting there is no war and techincally the President didn’t do anything.

Its a sick person that sends someone else to kill his sick dog.

CI

I don’t have so much of a problem with careful utilization of torture [to the extent that it’s even effective] and drone strikes, as I do with the intellectual gymnastics to pretend we’re not doing it.

Torture isn’t “enhanced interrogation”, it’s torture. If we’re not terribly sure who we’ve turned into pink mist with a Drone strike, quit calling everybody “suspected militants”.

These courses of action are at times warranted, but own the actions, and don’t turn around later and feign moral outrage when we may find ourselves on the other side.

NHSparky

But here’s the issue, CI–drones are like killing flies with a .45 at times, only less discriminating. Also, killing someone eliminates that pesky need to, you know, INTERROGATE them to see if we get more bad guys. Easy-peasy, right? Well, not so much.

It’s the lazy way out and hurts our ability to gather information on the AlQ types over the long haul. But that’s not a concern to Obumbles, or any Democrat since the Church Committee for that matter.

LZ

I didn’t disagree with torture and I certainly don’t disagree with drone strikes. I’m aware of the tactical advantages of torture over drone strikes, but I can’t honestly say I’m opposed to either. Let Obama pull the trigger over the phone a few times to get his rocks off, he’ll get bored of it in time like any other videogame. The lives he’s taking aren’t real to him because he doesn’t have to clean them off his boots at night. The same is true of most politicians, which is why most of us were recruited to execute the plans that they don’t have the stomach for.

Jack

I have no problem with torturing them or the drone strikes including those that kill the familes of our targets. If we can fire bomb German cties when almost all military aged males are in the service and at the fronts, then we can kill these savage’s little bastards and their wives too.

That said libs are a self serving lot and their arguments often lack consistency.

Sig

I have no problem with enhanced interrogation. I do think we are better–or should try to be better–than to torture without cause or desecrate corpses. Not because meat bags have intrinsic value, but because we can show respect to the enemy in a manner that they understand even while we totally obliterate his ability and willingness to wage warfare.

Drone strikes are just a tool. Tools are not inherently good or bad. Much more meaning can be attached to what is made or destroyed with them. I’d be more comfortable if I thought the people wielding the tools were doing so in the best interests of the nation, rather than just their political ends.