Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Link of the day

Although we did not have a problem with how the whole deal went down, you combine the "hit" ordered on OBL, then the missile strike on the Gadaffi compound that killed his son and now the drone strike in Yemen last week that was an attempt to take out U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and it would appear to stand in stark contrast to the moral grandstanding we heard out on the campaign trail in '08 regarding how elements of our war on terror did not reflect "what America stood for".


From our blog budddy Harrison:

When I heard that Osama bin Laden had been killed, I was pleased. When I learned he was unarmed, it did not trouble me (at first). Upon a week’s reflection, I think having shot an unarmed man, even someone like Osama bin Laden, was wrong. Apparently President Obama thought Waterboarding to be immoral and yet, he gave the order to have bin Laden killed. He has made no statements since bin Laden’s death about the gunning down of an unarmed person.


We're still waiting for pushback from the hypocritical left and the administration's water-carriers in the media but, of course, we're not holding our breath

6 comments:

Howlsatmoon said...

"we're not holding our breath."

Don't do that, you'll be dead and gone a thousand years before they do.......

SarahB said...

What better distraction than to stir the storm of the Dream Act. All those inconvenient moral dilemmas can be closeted/

Anonymous said...

Obama said he would go after Al Qaeda if he had actionable intel. Anyone in Al Qaeda is an enemy combatant and a legitimate target, armed or not. The mission was partly handled the way it was to minimize civilian deaths, you know if they took it out with bombs every man woman and child in that compound and likely some outside it would be dead and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Obama was elected with targeting Al Qaeda as his stated position, why in the world do you think there would be an outcry for doing precisely what he said he was going to do?

Killing an unarmed combatant who has neither surrendered nor been rendered 'hors de combat' is legal by international law, most command/control folks are unarmed; torturing a POW completely in your control is not. And some on the left have been squawking about it; believe it or not, we don't all hold the exact same opinion. I think this is just sophistry cobbled together to make the breathless charge of hypocrisy.

B-Daddy said...

Dean, Harrison,
I disagree that it was wrong to shoot an unarmed man. He is an enemy combatant, if he had been killed by a missile while he slept, he also would have been unarmed. We had the moral and legal right to target him.

Anonymous,
Agree that Obama said he would go after bin Laden. The real hypocrisy is over all the other things that the left criticized Bush for, but Obama continues. Gitmo not closing, targeting an American civilian, and most troubling, the illegal war in Libya. By what standard can the President initiate an attack on a foreign country and not notify the Congress under the War Powers Resolution? Kucinich, on the left rightly excoriated the President, but few others. Even though I am conservative, I criticized Bush over tribunals, PATRIOT act and warrantless wiretaps and have continually complained about the failure to declare war. Looking for some consistency on the other side. For me the issue is always about obeying the law and the constitution, regardless of who is President.

Dean said...

Anon, perhaps you missed the part where I said I had no problem with the hit ordered on bin Laden. I have been consistent on that, so that's not a good point from which to jump when claiming false charges of hypocrisy.

Unauthorized military action in Libya, which included another hit ordered by the President on Gadaffi's compound and a drone strike ordered on a U.S.-born individual in Yemen was not the Hopenchange I was hearing about in 2008.

Harrison said...

Where did I say launching a missile at him was a good idea? If you're going to send in the SEALs and make it "personal" then obviously the opportunity to capture him becomes a possibility. Remember, they were sent in there to KILL him.

But waterboarding is morally wrong.