The Interrogation Memos and the 'Moral Bearings' of President Obama

Monte Kuligowski
President Obama made a striking statement after his partisan and security-jeopardizing decision to release post 9/11 memos on the Bush administration’s policies relating to interrogation of terrorists. Classifying “waterboarding” as unlawful torture, Obama self-righteously proclaimed that the United States lost its “moral bearings” under the previous administration.

That wonderful institution of malpractice and fraud, the “mainstream” press put it this way:
“President Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost ‘our [sic] moral bearings’ with use of the tactics.”
Using the word “gruesome” to describe (former) U.S. interrogation policy in context of terrorism doesn’t quite cut it. Simulated drowning isn’t nice, but it’s not torture. (It is effective though, having saved American lives with information coughed up from use of the tactic.) “Gruesome,” on the contrary, describes the scene of red American blood gushing onto the sword-wielding terrorist as he callously chops off his victim’s head.

Watching Obama destroy the country and weaken national security as the so-called mainstream news media cover for him is torture.

Incidentally, the bloody tactic commonly referred to as “partial birth abortion” in which the “doctor” pushes, with the intent to cause death, a sharp instrument into the almost-born baby’s head makes the cut in describing the word “gruesome.”

And speaking of losing “our moral bearings,” as Obama charged, referring to policies that contributed heavily in preventing post 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, it appears that Obama lost his moral bearings years ago.

After all, with a moral compass in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama was pointed to the far, far left. That may or may not explain Obama’s voting record with respect to the gruesome, immoral practice of partial birth abortion -- it just might be that the President’s conscience has been seared to the point of putting politics over innocent life. Actually, I have no idea why or how anyone could vote to allow such depraved “family planning” tactics.

But there’s more. As W. Todd Huston reports:

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a ‘person’ that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a ‘neutrality clause’ that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal ‘neutrality clause’ was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the very bill he voted against in 2003.

It defies imagination that someone possessing the moral bearings of Barack Obama would have the audacity to bring moral accusations against the very men and women who kept the country safe for seven consecutive years following 9/11.

President Obama made a striking statement after his partisan and security-jeopardizing decision to release post 9/11 memos on the Bush administration’s policies relating to interrogation of terrorists. Classifying “waterboarding” as unlawful torture, Obama self-righteously proclaimed that the United States lost its “moral bearings” under the previous administration.

That wonderful institution of malpractice and fraud, the “mainstream” press put it this way:
“President Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost ‘our [sic] moral bearings’ with use of the tactics.”
Using the word “gruesome” to describe (former) U.S. interrogation policy in context of terrorism doesn’t quite cut it. Simulated drowning isn’t nice, but it’s not torture. (It is effective though, having saved American lives with information coughed up from use of the tactic.) “Gruesome,” on the contrary, describes the scene of red American blood gushing onto the sword-wielding terrorist as he callously chops off his victim’s head.

Watching Obama destroy the country and weaken national security as the so-called mainstream news media cover for him is torture.

Incidentally, the bloody tactic commonly referred to as “partial birth abortion” in which the “doctor” pushes, with the intent to cause death, a sharp instrument into the almost-born baby’s head makes the cut in describing the word “gruesome.”

And speaking of losing “our moral bearings,” as Obama charged, referring to policies that contributed heavily in preventing post 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, it appears that Obama lost his moral bearings years ago.

After all, with a moral compass in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama was pointed to the far, far left. That may or may not explain Obama’s voting record with respect to the gruesome, immoral practice of partial birth abortion -- it just might be that the President’s conscience has been seared to the point of putting politics over innocent life. Actually, I have no idea why or how anyone could vote to allow such depraved “family planning” tactics.

But there’s more. As W. Todd Huston reports:

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a ‘person’ that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a ‘neutrality clause’ that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal ‘neutrality clause’ was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the very bill he voted against in 2003.

It defies imagination that someone possessing the moral bearings of Barack Obama would have the audacity to bring moral accusations against the very men and women who kept the country safe for seven consecutive years following 9/11.