Republicans OPPOSE Democrat plan that could save thousands, maybe tens of thousands, from a fiery death

THIS IS NEWS THAT YOU WILL NOT SEE REPORTED ON ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE NET!  THIS ARTICLE IS A SMASH MOUTH EXCLUSIVE!This is absolutely gutless by the Republicans–the “party of no”–who refuse party-of-no-jsh021809dapcto enact legislation that may save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, and, without too much imagination, literally millions of lives.  The Pub opposition is not based upon economics. This  plan by the Democrats would not cost anything. Nor is the Republican opposition based upon effectiveness of this Democrat plan: The means of implementing this life-saving legislation already exist and have already been proven effective.

The problem is that this program proposed by the Democrats is arguably illegal.  The Democrats–and reasonably so–merely want their plan to be made legal.  Many opponents of the plan argue that, under current law, the plan proposed by the Democrats violates existing law.  Strident opponents even argue that the proposed plan is immoral.  Many so-called “social conservative” Republican opponents of the Democrat plan argue that the current law prevents abuses that might occur if the proposals of the Democrats are enacted into law.  And further, they claim that whether abuses occur or not, the lawmakers claim that their personal morality forbids them from voting in favor of such a proposal. 

Several polls over the past few years show public opinion is changing on this topic.  For instance, one poll taken in September, 2008 of “evangelical Christians” showed that the opinion of the persons being polled changed when they were first reminded of “the Golden Rule:” They were more inclined to oppose this Democrat proposal after having first been read “the Golden Rule.” [And by “the Golden Rule” I do not mean “Them with the Gold make the Rules,”  I mean “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”]

A June, 2008 poll showed that a “sizable minority” [44%] of Americans supported the Democrat proposal, up from 36% in a poll taken two years earlier.  

The most vocal opponent of this Democrat proposal is former V.P. Dick Cheney. Democrat operatives claim that Mr. Cheney’s opposition to this proposal shows that he is evil, that he does not care about Americans, that he is unpatriotic, and that he is out of touch with modern society and the Government’s need to protect American citizens. 

Can you guess what this Democrat proposal is?

Sorry, I have played a little trick on my readers. This proposal ksmjk02that could save American lives is called “enhanced interrogation.”  And it is a proposal that was first put forth by the Bush Administration.  Imagine if somebody said, hey, we can SAVE LIVES by doing this to the terrorists, and it won’t leave a mark, it will not kill them, it does not even hurt them physically, and it works like a charm. And imagine if it was Obama or some other adored and worshipped liberal politician who set forth the proposal to waterboard Kalidh Sheik Mohammed in order to save possibly thousands of lives. 

The poll cited above about the evangelicals who changed their minds after being read the Golden Rule is true, but with a twist. More evangelicals supported “torture” of captive terrorists before the question was changed.  Support for “torture” dropped when the question was changed to ask would we want the terrorists to torture our troops who are captured. [Of course, that is nonsensical, as they do torture our troops, and not torturing the terrorists who are captured will never change that.]

Public opinion on the proposal is fluid: here are the results of the most recent poll on the Democrat proposal.

“The survey by the Pew Research Center found that 15 percent of respondents said torture can often be justified while 34 percent say it is sometimes justified, for a total of 49 percent. Another 22 percent said torture is rarely justifiable and 25 percent said it should never be used.”

Below is how the polls should be worded. When asked this way on a conservative blog, the results were nearly unanymous. 

If you could have prevented 9-11 by water boarding Mohammed Atta, would you have?
  No free polls
If you found out that an American agent could prevent a future attack with extreme interrogation, would you approve?
  No free polls


FIRST UPDATE :  Within minutes of finishing this comment I read an excellant post by smitty on The Other McCain that dovetails with my reasons for “tricking” my readers.  It explains my reason better than I could.  The reason is that many readers accept or reject an idea based strictly upon by whom the idea was first proposed. If Obama or Dems proposed waterboarding, many Dems would support it and many Pubs would oppose it.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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