The Torture Witch Hunt and Flippity-flopping: it’s all about Political Convenience

I think the general public is coming to the sudden (and possibly harsh) realization that the democratic fervor for prosecuting the Bush administration on the issue of waterboarding is not only slowing to a crawl but beginning to royally backfire.  Most people are aware of the CIA reports that emerged last week indicating that Nancy Pelosi had full knowledge of the “enhanced” techniques being used, despite her going on record earlier this year saying she was an innocent bystander, completely unaware of what the big bad wolf, (insert Republican leader here), was doing.

Finally, someone on a left leaning political show is willing to call her out on it. And that person is… John Stewart.

I have to admit, I love me some John Stewart. He is a hilarious guy, and even though I tend to disagree with a lot of what he says, most of it is still pretty funny. With Bush in office for the last 8 years Stewart has had no shortage of material (some would say he has had plenty of material with Obama too, but that is another story) and it’s nice to finally see him aim his barbs at the left. Lets hope that as the current leaders’ missteps pile up, he continues to skewer them, regardless of ideology. For now though, sit back and enjoy some classic John Stewart: essentially calling out Pelosi for what she is: A flip-flopper of political convenience.

Speaking of political convenience, here are two very contradictory clips of Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer talking about Torture. (kudos HotAir)

The first one is from the Rachel Maddow show last month:

Sounds like the standard democratic posturing being peddled around MSNBC. It is worth noting he is talking about “enhanced interrogation techniques” which causes trauma, but no physical damage. Now listen to this audio of Chuck Schumer in 2004, and draw your own conclusions:

Shocking? It shouldn’t be. Quite simply, most democrats were all about safety, security, and doing what was necessary to protect America when it was politically convenient. I can only imagine the political backlash that would have ensued if anyone would have gotten up in the senate shortly after 9/11, and said something to the effect of:

“look, while we are going after these terrorists who suicide bombed our cities, I think we need to be cognizant of their rights. Even though they have no country, even though they themselves do not abide by the rules of warfare or the Geneva Convention, even though they killed innocent civilians, even though they are an invisible force bent on the destruction of western civilization, they really should have all the rights we have. When we capture them, they should not be forcibly interrogated, but treated like prisoners of war, and if they get us again… well, that is the price we pay for being the better people.”

Sure, it’s an honorable position, and I can respect it, BUT, In early 2002 even a watered-down iteration anything close to the statement above would have been political suicide. The convenient stance back then was not only “outrage combined with doing whatever it took to put Bin Laden into the ground”, but most of all there was a resounding and unanimous commitment to taking every step possible to ensure that 9/11 never, ever, EVER, happens again. Now years later, with the Iraq war dragging on and no new terrorist attacks (is that ironic?), the public tide has slowly turned against Bush and Co, and Team Obama thought it would be a politically convenient time to dig a shallow grave.

Now that the truth about the hypocrisy of leaders like Pelosi and Schumer are coming to light, and the witch hunt begins to threaten the White House, Obama cant backtrack away from this fast enough. Today he flip-flopped on the release of photos that depicted “tortured” victims, why? Because it is politically convenient to distance himself from the torture debate.

unCommon Sense: Torture Abuse?

With the release of the CIA interview today claiming water boarding saved American lives, and Obama suggesting he might prosecute such actions, we all have a fresh new hypothetical moral dilemma to mentally chew on.  I think most people can agree that there is some point at which everyone supports the use of aggression as a peace keeping tool.  Where each of your friends, coworkers, and family draw that line depends on their past experience and worldview, and no one will ever unanimously agree on where that point is.  Maybe for some it is when a cop is forced to shoot a criminal who is attacking a defenseless citizen.  It might even be when a strong country is obligated to help a defenseless country resist an aggressive and hostile neighbor.  Maybe for some that line is never drawn until they are personally attacked in some manner.

For me, whenever I hear one of these moral dilemmas that people love to use to put you on the spot, I generally approach the question by looking at the worst case scenario.  In this particular case I would say that the potential loss of even one single innocent American citizen’s life trumps a *proven radical jihadist getting some water up his nose.  But does that make torture ok, even a form of torture that is (slightly) more civilized than its gory predecessors?   The answer is: I don’t know and neither do you, because like every hypothetical dilemma you’ve ever heard, it can only be realistically addressed in the “moment of truth” by whoever is in the position of authority.  This decision maker must carefully consider the big picture and the small picture, weigh all the pros and cons, and make a really tough call.

Take torture and aggression completely off the table and Americans face a potentially devastating and possibly avoidable worst case scenario. Make torture and aggression something only used in the most extreme and dangerous situations, requiring approval from the president himself, and we enable our highest elected office to make the tough decisions that come with the job of protecting the free world.

*Proven meaning authentic evidence of crimes against the United States.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has a nice summary of the entire torture circus, and evidence that the public is more in tune with Dick Cheney’s stance than the current administration’s stance.  HotAir also uncovered a compelling article – buried by WaPo – that suggests the torture memos were released in response to Cheney’s original criticisms that Obama was endangering the US with lax security policies.  Talk about your all-time biggest backfire…