Tag Archives: 60 Minutes

Bullets over Bubbles

Originally posted at American Thinker

The media is buzzing because for the first time in modern history a journalist actually demanded an answer from a liberal to a logical question.  Following the Navy SEAL hit on Osama bin Laden, Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, interviewed Tom Donilon, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, and broached the obvious inconsistency in the administration’s argument that water boarding is “over the line,” but “shooting an unarmed man in the face [is] legal and proper.”

Although Wallace’s audacious interview skills are commendable, it’s obvious that Mike Wallace’s son requires 60 minutes’ worth of a refresher course in basic liberal logic – which, by the way, is an oxymoron.

Nevertheless, Chris asked Mr. Donilon a valid question which could be paraphrased in the following way: “Why is putting a couple of bullets into the head of an unarmed man acceptable, but pouring water over an enemy combatant’s face ‘over the line?’”

The underlying principle on the left is that putting a wet cloth over someone’s face is cruel and unusual treatment but holding a head underwater until the bubbles stop is permissible, encouraged and, if successful, even applauded.

Tom, who at first glance seems like a sane man, spoke on behalf of the Obama White House, which is on par with speaking for every liberal on the planet, and said, “Because, well, our judgment is that [water boarding] is not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.”

According to Tom, obtaining intelligence through unacceptable means like facial holding, muscle fatigue, and being confined with a caterpillar in a small space is less tolerable than blowing a hole through the face of a person who nonetheless deserved it.  Life-saving intelligence-gathering deemed illegal and achieved through the cruel and inhuman practice of feigned drowning is, according to liberals, better left not attempted, even if the potential interrogation “victim” is planning to murder a few thousand Americans.

To normal people, i.e., those who think clearly, Donilon’s explanation is a bit peculiar, but to anyone who understands the skewed and illogical manner in which liberals think, the National Security Adviser’s response makes perfect sense.

For liberals, killing is an acceptable route, but discomfort on any level is never “consistent” with liberal values. If the prevention of uneasiness ends in death, then so be it.

Case in point: Abortion.  Think about it – for some women, carrying a child to term can be as uncomfortable as water boarding.  Just ask Planned Parenthood. Unplanned pregnancy is scary and problematic, not unlike enhanced interrogation.  However, if “gutsy” liberals are in charge, terminating a pregnancy is, more times than not, the preferred solution.

Donilon confirmed that liberal judgment dictates that the finality of violent death is consistent with liberal values, while inconvenience, irritation, and minimal emotional pain are objectionable to liberal sensibilities.  A suspected terrorist gasping for air for a few seconds is unconscionable, but a fetus bleeding out from a purposely inflicted mortal head wound is perfectly acceptable.

One thing is for sure: It’s a good thing Osama bin Laden met Allah instantly, because had he survived a botched attempt to jettison him into eternity the al-Qaeda leader would find out that giving medical attention to those who survive a murder attempt is also inconsistent with liberal values.  Obama would likely agree that to lend a hand to a dying terrorist would have “burdened the original decision” to deliver up a dead bin Laden.

In reality, Chris Wallace’s probing question was a scratch-your-head inquiry and an honest attempt to understand an illogical way of thinking. The Fox News Sunday host acknowledged that most would agree that shooting Osama dead was justifiable.  However, Wallace, as well as most right-thinking people, just couldn’t grasp the dichotomy between the unbridled elation associated with blowing a hole through the skull of a vicious murderer and the endless moral indignation expressed over holding the head of an equally monstrous beast under water for 35 seconds.

Wallace pressed on: “What I am second-guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do water boarding?” In other words – what’s the rationale behind evading distress in favor of death?

Hey Chris, the answer is simple.  There is none.

Why wasn’t the relatively benign enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “who was just as bad an operator” as the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, acceptable? It’s because death is always embraced by the left as ethically superior to placing an individual in a painful situation. If the opportunity presents itself, the benefit gained through character-building coercive means will always take a back seat to offing someone. If the revered right-to-choose is presented, the left will almost always side with sacrificing a life over depriving comfort.

If Chris Wallace needs to better understand the rationale behind crazy liberal policies, maybe someone should remind him that the same group who decries water boarding lobbies for, funds, and defends the killing of unborn babies. All the cable news network Sunday morning talk show host needs to do is revisit abortion statistics which show that 98% of all abortions, a procedure liberals heartily endorse, are for the sake of convenience, and done almost exclusively to circumvent the anxiety associated with accepting moral and physical responsibility for one’s own personal actions.

Abortion over adoption – a shot to the skull over enhanced interrogation – for liberals, the loss of abortion rights would be like subjecting America to an ongoing water boarding session.  To liberals, abortion on demand is similar to shooting bin Laden in the head: necessary, better than the alternative, and lauded on the left as “gutsy” and worthy of rationalization.

So when Chris Wallace attempts to make sense out of what seems senseless and asks reasoned, well thought-out questions, the left’s response exposes the foundational liberal principle that when given a choice, killing is preferred over avoidable discomfort and at all times will be vigorously justified by an ideology rooted in irrational absurdity.

Why Carter dissed Kennedy

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Jimmy Carter is so mad he’s spitting peanut shells. In an effort to buoy a dismal legacy, Carter resurrected the “Lion of the Senate” from a saintly sarcophagus to blame the dead senator for delaying comprehensive health coverage for three decades.

In a “60 Minutes” interview with Leslie Stahl Jimmy claimed, “The fact is that we would have had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy’s deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed.” Carter asserts that if it wasn’t for Kennedy, who is viewed as the “champion of the recent health care legislation,” Americans would already have comprehensive care and Carter policy would be the reason why.

Imagine how a failed ex-president must feel seeing Ted Kennedy, who Carter says “deliberately blocked” health care legislation, receiving kudos for being “a lifelong champion for universal health care.” Jimmy Carter obviously feels the need to set the record straight, to thwart a dead Kennedy from getting credit for a policy he prevented from passing while Carter was in office.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, Jimmy Carter exhibits unbridled disdain for the late Senator, claiming that 30 years ago, “Ted Kennedy killed the bill” and that the Massachusetts senator’s suppressing health care was a mean political tactic.

At the time, Kennedy and Carter were both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination so, according to Carter, Kennedy blocked health care “out of spite.” During the post-mortem assault, Jimmy accuses Teddy of not wanting to see him have “a major success in that realm of life.”

Pretty nasty stuff! Carter claims Kennedy undermined people-friendly policy to further his presidential aspirations. Jimmy should have insisted the Stahl interview be conducted while strolling across Dike’s Bridge, where Carter could have explained how “Kennedy killed the bill,” driving home an observable point.

Carter reveals that while liberals lit votives at the altar of St. Teddy, he was keeping a journal chronicling the Massachusetts senator’s unflattering behavior. Carter penned in his diary, “Kennedy continuing his irresponsible and abusive attitude, immediately condemning our health plan.”

Is a peanut farmer from Georgia daring to accuse Hyannis Port royalty of “abusive…irresponsible…spiteful” behavior? Doesn’t Jimmy know that dearly departed Ted was a consummate gentleman, always ready to transport young women safely to any destination? To suggest Teddy Kennedy quashed health care reform fails to credit the deceased senator as a “people friendly person” who always put the well being of others ahead of his own welfare.

The interview proved that Carter is desperate to be credited with something – anything, be it health care reform, or as the architect of a never adopted, money-saving energy conservation program. For many reasons, Jimmy Carter’s presidency was, and is still, considered abysmal. Yet at this late date a departed senator could redeem Jimmy’s forlorn legacy.

President Carter’s truthful “60 Minutes” expose of Kennedy’s willingness to “kill” to advance a political career has shed new light on Mr. Poucha Pond’s malicious nature and could turn out to be the most glorious political achievement of Carter’s fifty-year career.

The First “We All Hate America” Debate

obama-pointing12452490336a00d83451586c69e200e54f2ec17b8834-800wi2

In a “…season of new beginnings” the hope and change President Barack Obama has expressed he “…would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leader.” The Iranian dictator has responded by saying he would welcome a debate with the president if it was held in an unbiased, anti-Semitic venue like the United Nations. As a concerned resident of the global community it is unlikely Barack Obama would decline such a gracious opportunity to interact face-to-face with the maligned despot.

The Iranian leader is preparing the debate arena by drawing a chalk line across the floor. In hopes of wooing Obama to the conversation Mahmoud is industriously removing stones and rocks by rejecting “Western proposals for Iran to freeze’ its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions.” In addition, Mr. Mahmoud is warming up the dais by delineating additional margins for his opponent by the friendly dispatch of warships to, “…international waters and the Gulf of Aden…indicative of his country’s high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country’s shore.

Hopeful that Barack Obama will agree to the contest, Mahmoud is also preparing the pre-debate fallow ground by bald-facedly precluding their discussion by saying, “…the dispute over his country’s nuclear program is ‘over’.” Obama will likely agree to Mahmoud’s qualifications or he would be setting preconditions of his own after vowing to the global community to have none. If Barry favors bantering with the Iranian dictator, which would be a photo opportunity not to be squandered, submissively steering clear of nuclear issues and a surrendering all preconditions would make Obama the precondition dupe.

In an attempt to justify his positions, Ahmadenijad appears anxious to engage the novice American president in direct dialogue about things he has been openly discussing worldwide since January 20th, which is “the origin of the global problems.” Mahmoud is probably more than willing to review with Barack his unending punch list of apologies and address US culpability as the origin of most global woes, a subject the US president is adept at reiterating every chance he gets. For Ahmadenijad a debate with Obama could evolve into a convivial love-fest replete with duplications of Obama’s derogatory American sentiments.

Debate is supposed to be verbal interaction between people with opposing viewpoints who argue to make their position known in an attempt to convince their opponent to convert to their way of thinking. This would not be the case if Obama agrees to an Ahmadenijad repartee. For a mediocre debater like Barack Obama, debating Ahmadenijad would merely be an opportunity to win a contest, or at least score a respectable draw by sparring with a challenger who shares analogous opinions on  his own anti-American views.

Obama agreeing to debate could benefit both he and Mahmoud, furthering both their agendas. They could enlist CNN Palestinian sympathizer Christine Amanpour to frame all the pertinent questions. 60 Minutes, interviewer Mike Wallace could set the tone by allowing Ahmadenijad the time to confront Obama on how the United States has been disengaged and sought to dictate their terms to the rest of the world. Obama, who is of same opinion as the Iranian dictator, can then recap exactly what he expressed at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain Trinidad.

Ahmadenijad can then proceed to tell Obama that the United States is an, Israel loving nation at war with Islam and accuse America of breaking trust with the Eastern Hemisphere. Barack can concur by saying, “It is true that the trust that binds the United States with places where the Muslim faith has been practiced has been strained because of past administrations?” He can then guarantee that, “We are not at war with Muslims, especially not Iran,” which will surely warrant break time for kisses on both Obama’s cheeks and a big Persian hug from his new found comrade.

Addressing the global economic crisis Ahmadenijad can verbally indict the, “Leaders of the Western bloc … for trying to extend their own crisis to the rest of the globe to portray it as global.” Again, Obama can come along side his Iranian fellow world citizen and agree, “It is true that the economic crisis that the world is experiencing started in the US?” Before the first buzzer goes off Barack Obama can fit in taking responsibility, apologizing and coinciding with Iran’s tyrant that he is in fact correct emphasizing he too is relieved that the United States’ has lost high standing in the world. Obama’s full accord should result in Ahmadenijad breaking out in a full unbridled bandari dance.

After he calms down Mahmoud can then express gratitude to Obama for wresting banks out of the hands of the Zionist bankers who are largely responsible for the world’s financial woes. Then Mahmoud can thank the UN for sponsoring the debate acknowledging with pride their long history of rightly felt anti-Jewish bias and condemnation of Israel in much the style and manner of Barack Obama’s long time mentor and pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright . Barack can express to the panel that even Reverend Wright would agree that notwithstanding His Jewishness, “…had He been alive today, Jesus Christ would be on the side of Iran, not the West.”

Impartial journalist Christine Amanpour can then address Bush’s “war mongering” approach to the Middle East and the former president’s past mistakes in the same manner Obama has expressed the world over. Mahmoud can offer unfettered praise to Obama for exposing Bush for the failure he was. Ms. Amanpour can touch on Bush’s counterterrorism policies and refer to them as torture and then both Ahmadenijad and Obama can in unison give Bush a duo thumbs down reaching between podiums for a customary fist bump.

Obama can remind his rival that even his newest compadre Hugo Chavez felt George W. Bush was responsible for the world’s economic crisis and desired to see the ex-President put on trial. Mahmoud will likely suggest to Obama that Bush be tried for his economic foibles at the same time the administration prosecutes him for war crimes and torture…Obama might be apt to applaud Mahmoud for such an obviously efficient proposal.

Mahmoud can again stress discussions are “Over” concerning Iranian nuclear proliferation aspirations and thank Mr. Obama for his submissive attitude on the subject. If Obama ruffles a tad, Mahmoud can tamp down his reaction by rearticulating how, “Regardless of what Mr. Obama says, even he has admitted that ‘All too often the United States starts by dictating…and they don’t always know all the factors that are involved.’ Obama has even said, America needs to listen more…even the president of the Great Satan admits mistakes and lack of perfection. So why Iran should be forced to comply with their wishes?” When Obama is slated to reply he can again be of the same mind as the Iranian despot saying, “You have an excellent point there my brother.”

Three quarters of the way through the debate, it should be evident that every quarrel Ahmadenijad has against the United States has been one that Obama has commiserated with. Even Christine Amanpour might be forced to ask the obvious question, is this any way to run a debate?

Addressing the high level of agreement between the two world leaders Obama, speaking on his own behalf can then express to the CNN reporter, a beaming Ahmadenijad and a slack jawed Mike Wallace. “I’ve always been someone who’s brought people of different views together by trying to reach a higher level of candor and honesty and understanding. Moreover, that has worked well for me…always addressing our own imperfections. I want to understand my Iranian brother’s hurts, pains and feelings.” Mahmoud will obviously be so thrilled with Obama’s response he will likely embrace the president and squeeze him to the point of bear hug embarrassment.

Obama may be forced to push the Iranian leader off and point him back to his stead. After regaining his composure Ahmadenijad can then turn to Barack Obama and thank him for never stringently opposing his nuclear ambitions. And, in an effort to finally end the Middle East crisis, for understanding Iran’s jihad justified desire to wipe Israel off the map. He can express appreciation for Obama by admitting that even though the Persian culture might be a little different he is relieved he can exercise candor and honesty without the risk of the American president instituting new sanctions, threatening military action or going beyond stating, “Let me be perfectly clear…this is unacceptable.” Ahmadenjad can convey overwhelming gratitude that Obama’s supercilious rhetoric is never followed-up by action!

Obama can then conclude by telling Ahmadenijad that exposing America’s deficiencies has worked well in bringing people of different views together. It won him an election! It has become the hallmark of his inexperienced, anti-American, leftist agenda presidency, gaining him new likeminded colleagues all around the nuclear obsessed world.

Wrapping up Obama can acknowledge that without a word of decent he accomplished the impossible his first successful debate tie with both parties in complete concurrence.

%d bloggers like this: