A teaching contradiction?

While we’re on the subject of reactions to the torture memo, here’s another one the Washington Post saw as sane:

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their “moral compass,” a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder’s identifying them as “moral cowards.” Mulling Obama’s claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

David Horowitz?  Charles Krauthammer?  Nope, it’s Michael “Imperial Hubris” Scheuer.  Y’know, the guy that articulately argued that 9/11 was the culmination of pent-up blowback from several decades of intervention.  The one that had a joint press appearance with Ron Paul about this in the run-up to the primaries.  That is the person now arguing that to not torture is UnAmerican.

To put this in clearer perspective: Michael Scheuer saying this is like Redman doing an anti-drug PSA.

I can only think of one possible way that this column isn’t proof of severe cranial trauma: he’s using reverse psychology to express to people just how cold an empire that admits it is an empire has to operate, and this is but a chess move to make openly questioning the worth of policing the world harder to dismiss.  Unfortunately, my internal meter is leaning more towards the Full of Shit explanation.


About b-psycho

Left-libertarian blogger & occasional musician.
This entry was posted in fevered barking, Foreign Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A teaching contradiction?

  1. Scott says:

    I just don’t like the use of the word “moral” to describe the decisions of a government that initiates force on its own citizens every day. There is no high road to take.
    A country that would drop two atomic bombs on civilian populations in order to force an unconditional surrender (when a conditional one was potentially on the table), can and will do anything. It’s also silly to think “torture” can be debated and decided in public; it’s like saying the mayor has made it clear there will be no more police brutality in his city. Yeah, ok.

  2. b psycho says:

    There is no high road to take.


    The hypocrisy of all this is the real point, IMO. There’s no such thing as a “correct” method of domination, it’s just amusing to me when the facade of American Exceptionalism is so openly proven to be bullshit by it’s own proponents.

  3. Pingback: imperial hubris

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s