Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Indeed, what's your point?
It would have been nice if you added the fact that I don't think you can "out" someone that's not undercover. It would certainly have made your sexy post more interesting.
|
Here's your post I was referring to:
"Security through obscurity? I would hope and pray that my tax money is being used to provide real security. Besides, Gitmo and the other black interrogations sites aren't exactly top secrete.
Finally, I would like to add that I am of the opinion that anyone who as participated or authorized torture should be outed and held accountable. I can't help it."
I really don't care who "outed" who regarding Plame and the recent CIA interrogator. Neither person's identity should have been made public.
My point is that you are either for "fair play" (morals, standards, doing what's right, standing by your word, and such) or you are results based (do what it takes to achieve the desired result). You apparently believe it's OK for Obama to do whatever it takes to win an election, but it's not OK for the CIA and military to do whatever it takes to protect American lives. IMO your positions are inconsistent and biased by your politcal views.
Is lying, manipulating and misrepresenting facts, and changing positions with the latest polls to get control of the White House more morally wrong than waterboarding a known terrorist to save American lives? That's debatable, but I don't believe the two are very far from each other morally. (And for the record, both candidates are lying, manipulating, etc.)
I guess I'm a "do whatever it takes" (within reason) guy. You may not agree, but at least I'm consistent.