Related Link » Obama gives nuanced defense of his stance on torturePre-disclosure #1: The following post is not, I repeat with emphasis, not a commentary on the efficacy, ethics, or any other value judgement for what is commonly considered to be a manifestation of torture.
“Obama did not dispute Cheney's assertions about the memos but appeared to try to blunt their potential impact by shifting the argument. The assertion that the CIA's methods worked doesn't answer what Obama called the core question: ‘Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?’ Obama asked. ‘And it doesn't answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?’”
— ‘By Peter Wallsten and Greg Miller, April 30, 2009’
Pre-disclosure #2: I make no claim whatsoever as to the originality of my line of reasoning in what follows, for it is inconceivable to me that this line of reasoning, based in this instance on my humble claim to some measure of basic common sense, has not been traversed innumerable times in the past by others.
I wish to consider the two Obama quotes excerpted from the related link, above. I submit to you, gentle reader, that there is not one scintilla of value in what The Obama refers to as "core questions". I must emphasize that one scintilla is here being used to mean the smallest possible granule of value, akin to an atom of value.
To me, such a seemingly bold assertion on my part is, nevertheless, self evident, but I feel obliged to elaborate. I ask you to pause and reflect as follows: How could one possibly answer The Obama's questions with any kind of supporting evidence? Well?
It simply isn't possible, for the obvious reason that there is no way to rewind the clock and redo that scenario. Whether you answer "no you couldn't have", or The Obama's favorite "yes you could have", you could only truly support either contention by replaying a historical scenario. Moreover, in the case of the negative response, you would have to replay it an infinite number of times, so as to eliminate every conceivable alternative technique to the one that actually elicited the valuable information, including my own favorite absurdity: enticing the terrorists with offers of chocolate ice-cream cones.
So many replays; so little time. And, sadly, no convenient time machine to get you to those interrogations.
I have a core question of my own. Why hasn't anyone in the media, to my knowledge, asked The Obama, "Sir, what the f*ck are you talking about?"
Post #905 A Core Question of My Own
Not being a professional journalist, I can only guess at an answer to your question.
ReplyDeleteBut my guess is, the news is not what he is talking about. The news is that he is talking.
And you, mon ami, and your conspiratorial right-wing ideological confreres should be humbly grateful for the attention.