USpolitical.com

Here is the excerpt from an article at CNN.com:

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq today. Obama had said in a debate Tuesday that he’d strike al Qaeda if it established a base in Iraq. McCain responded that al Qaeda already is in Iraq, and Obama countered that al Qaeda came to Iraq only after the U.S. invaded.

So Obama admits Al Qaeda is in Iraq…but what do we do now Barack?

While I respect the opinion on those who insist that water boarding is torture, I would like to see a couple of elements added to the debate.

That of who has the moral high ground?
And what is torture?

I feel like we need to realize that we have captured very bad people who have done or planned very bad things against US citizens. The strange thing is, we’re willing to shoot or otherwise blow them up, but if caught alive, we have to treat them well?!

Most people can’t even define torture other than to say, “waterboarding is…and whenever anything else comes up we don’t like, that will be too.” John McCain, the hero of one side of the debate, was tortured in Vietnam. He had permanent damage done to his arms. That is torture. The “waterboarding is torture” crowd make me wonder if laying a hand on detainees is torture? Can you strike them? If so, how much? Is sleep deprivation torture? If so, at what point does it become so? Do our special forces and navy diving commandos undergo torture in their training? Oh, but it is by choice? Then is it not a psychological technique to waterboard or inflict severe discomfort? And discomfort it is, temporary at that. These people can walk away like they just got tasered.

And are terrorists’ actions in any way dictated by whether or not we subject them to water boarding or not when they’re caught? Not sure that is why they’ve been blowing things up for a couple of decades…

I’m all for less “aggressive” techniques if they are backed up by results, but when the case made in a liberal saturated media is that we should simply let ideals govern ourselves, it is unconvincing. Not a merit less argument by any means. Having the moral high ground indeed also hinges on how we treat detainees, but lets hear the case made for that more powerfully.

This article by Mark Davis on the subject clarifies some of my sentiments:

We have heard much from the portion of America that grows queasy at the thought of tough treatment for al-Qaeda detainees. But I’ll share what makes me queasy: my countrymen in tattered clothes perched at windows a thousand feet high against the Manhattan skyline, their lungs burning with jet fuel, making the decision to jump to their deaths because it was a better fate than what awaited them if they did not.

Against the backdrop of that memory, anyone worked up about the occasional, carefully targeted waterboarding is simply not serious about protecting our nation.

Why does it seem like there is more outrage and media attention from Iraqis regarding this Blackwater incident than the fact that terrorists kill dozens of Iraqis every day?  The sole power keeping Iraq from destroying itself is utilizing a private company to provide military style services.  Why attack their legitimacy and ability to facilitate the safety and longevity of your nation because of an incident dwarfed by civil strife and killings of a massive scale?
Why the quick reaction?  If what many of them claim is true, and Blackwater mercilessly gunned down civilians unnecessarily, that is bad, yes.  But it just doesn’t seem likely.  Interesting to note that none of the articles I’ve read have any information on forensics or anything that would prove wrongdoing…by either side really.  But I’m no expert.  However, I do recognize the ability of terrorists to use the guise of civilians and policemen to get close to convoys or soldiers and then open fire.    If there are people found to be responsible, try them in court.  But why the heightened attention to this incident?  Is it just because this is someone new doing”the killing”?  And why no outrage towards the terrorists who actually started it dressed as civilians according to Blackwater?  This seems way more plausible.

Instead of trying to force the US to take the license to operate in Iraq from Blackwater, why don’t the Iraqis create a national mandate to take the license of life away from terrorists and then actually do it?

While Hillary and others criticize Barack Obama for his comments about meeting with leaders from Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea, another candidate is making bizarre comments.

Tom Tancredo suggests we threaten to attack Mecca in the event of another terrorist attack.

Check it out over at Real Clear Politics.

Outlines the many and varied conflicts and turmoil that exist and have existed in the Middle East. Sort of opens the eyes in a sense.

Not only did the Holocaust not happen in Ahmadinejad’s mind, but America is only full of lies!
The US should come down hard on Iran. If they are messing with our troops, we should mess them up. Way to go Bush.
This kind of Iran has little to offer the world. They simply threaten to heighten their terror if provoked.

Leave!  (or so say the Democrats)

One would expect a decent plan or something when so heavily criticizing the President’s plan.  However, it appears the only plan is to leave because…it is hard.

Prominently featured as the main article on yahoo!, this article consists of an interview with Ehren Watada.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.

Some of his unimpressive answers were silimar to the following:

SITES (journalist): Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?

WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they’re not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning.

Indeed, it is so available to the seekers of truth that even you, Watada, cannot give a tangible description of the “facts.”

All I can say is, “Great job Democrats! You got this guy hook, line and sinker!”

Dennis Prager has a follow-up column at townhall.com to clarify and refute accusations made against his position regarding Keith Ellison’s use of the Koran in place of the Bible in his swearing in.

Unreal. These particular Muslims have the effrontery to demand everyone to go blind and forget the past.

Strangely enough, Keith Ellison is somewhat in the middle of this “scandalous denial of civil rights.” His website has a Thanksgiving message devoted almost entirely to discrediting the legitimate fears of passengers boarding the US Airways domestic flight.

This article by Hugh Hewitt and this article by Ann Coulter analyze the situation perfectly. These Imams were not acting normal, they were acting stupid and should be removed from every flight until they act normal like everyone else.

Hugh Hewitt hits the nail on the head:

Were they trying to show just how bigoted and backwards Americans are? Just because four planes crashed as their hijackers screamed “Allah Akbar!” five years ago, suddenly everyone who says “Allah Akbar” while flying becomes suspect in the eyes of the typical American rube. It’s not fair. After all, a Roman Catholic could make the Sign of the Cross before eating his airline-issued Animal Crackers and no one would look twice.