Probably the best example of the hypocrisy I've seen recently regarding waterboarding came Tuesday night on "The O'Reilly Factor." Bill had a two pundits on, one against the procedure and one for it (when necessary, to be precise), and to the former Bill asked point blank: Would you waterboard someone to save the life of your child? The response? I'd do ANYTHING to save the life of my child, but ...
"But what?" O'Reilly asked.
The [Democrat] pundit went on to explain how President Bush shouldn't be allowed to use the procedure against terrorists in order to save American lives. But, she'd use it to save her child's life.
Let that sink in a moment.
There are a lot of people who feel as this woman. They'd rather let hundreds, even thousands of people perish in a terrorist attack rather than "torture" a terrorist for information that can prevent the attack. They insist that waterboarding doesn't work even though it's been proven it already has, that no matter what the procedure should never be used, and to claim the procedure might be necessary (to save lives) is merely engaging in "scare tactics" and "paranoia."
Fortunately, it seems those who read CNN.com have quite a bit more common sense than these wine spritzer-sipping peons:
As of 9am yesterday morning their online poll shows that the public believes waterboarding is acceptable in certain circumstances. Exactly. Like if there is reliable intel of an imminent terrorist attack, maybe.
Hube:
I saw that - good catch. She used the "But I am a mother excuse" and so she essentially said mothers are unqualified (biologically?) from national security positions.
Posted by: AJ Lynch at December 13, 2007 03:51 PMAJ - I caught the same nuance you did.
Isn't Hillary Clinton also a mother?
Posted by: Doug Purdie at December 14, 2007 01:53 PM