Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joeydb
Why can't I be? Would you assert in the reverse that getting rid of special interrogation techniques is going to help our security? That niavete' is dangerous, especially coming from the White House. It is among the most absurd and ridiculous positions that I've ever witnessed from a president, and yes, that includes the numerous missteps of his predecessor.
Sorry, I'm an adult, so I don't believe that playing nice with the terrorist captives is going to make them stop attacking us. It won't. What Obama and the Congress are sending to the world through their actions is a perception that America is weak. That ultimately will result in another attack. When it does, since the Democrats are in total control (as they are fond of pointing out), all the blame, and all the blood, will be on their hands.
I hope it never happens, but that is the hypothetical situation as it now sits.
|
i am not naive, nor do i believe that taking a position opposite of george bush indicates a desire to have this country be attacked. that's an overly simplistic view of dems vs reps in my opinion. and, as dala said, the closing of gitmo is not seemingly on obamas list of things to do.