H/t to ThinkProgress for this one. On the O’Reilly Factor, Bill-O had Al D’amato on to ramble about John McCain and the proposed modifications to the Geneva Conventions. Watch it.
Now I want to point out the two most glaring errors in this…
- Bill-O mentions that even if America does honor the Geneva Conventions, that doesn’t mean our enemies will.
- Bill-O then says that there’s no point in doing this because it won’t make us look any better and the haters will continue to hate us.
The big problem is identical in both. The idea is that because the REACTION to what we do won’t be great, that means we don’t need to do it at all. Because our enemies might still torture, we should do the same. Because it won’t improve our image, we shouldn’t bother.
What this tells me is that these men have no actual moral fiber. Their actions have nothing to do with caring about what’s moral, what’s ethical, and what’s just plain the right thing to do. It’s all political. And because they don’t think it’ll improve our image amongst the “haters”, it doesn’t matter that it WOULD help our image amongst those on the fence, or our current allies who are quickly becoming alienated.
You would think that America’s purpose is to serve as an example for the rest of the world live up to, yet here we have our political squawkboxes suggesting that, rather than providing the example and hoping others live up to it, we stoop down to the same level our enemies are already at.
See, a truly moral person doesn’t care if his actions won’t change others’ perceptions of him. He does it because he knows it’s right. It seems the redcoats don’t fall under that category. They have an “eye for an eye” attitude. I wonder if that’s what Jesus would do?
[tags]terrorism, torture, bush[/tags]
H/t to ThinkProgress for this one. On the O’Reilly Factor, Bill-O had Al D’amato on to ramble about John McCain and the proposed modifications to the Geneva Conventions. Watch it.
[youtube]QTijEqvgcAM[/youtube]
Now I want to point out the two most glaring errors in this…
- Bill-O mentions that even if America does honor the Geneva Conventions, that doesn’t mean our enemies will.
- Bill-O then says that there’s no point in doing this because it won’t make us look any better and the haters will continue to hate us.
The big problem is identical in both. The idea is that because the REACTION to what we do won’t be great, that means we don’t need to do it at all. Because our enemies might still torture, we should do the same. Because it won’t improve our image, we shouldn’t bother.
What this tells me is that these men have no actual moral fiber. Their actions have nothing to do with caring about what’s moral, what’s ethical, and what’s just plain the right thing to do. It’s all political. And because they don’t think it’ll improve our image amongst the “haters”, it doesn’t matter that it WOULD help our image amongst those on the fence, or our current allies who are quickly becoming alienated.
You would think that America’s purpose is to serve as an example for the rest of the world live up to, yet here we have our political squawkboxes suggesting that, rather than providing the example and hoping others live up to it, we stoop down to the same level our enemies are already at.
See, a truly moral person doesn’t care if his actions won’t change others’ perceptions of him. He does it because he knows it’s right. It seems the redcoats don’t fall under that category. They have an “eye for an eye” attitude. I wonder if that’s what Jesus would do?
[tags]terrorism, torture, bush[/tags]
