What we’re seeing now, with the hot-button topic of the leaked memo regarding killing American citizens, is a flabbergasting example of high-hypocrisy from both sides of the political aisle.
One of the things I pride myself on is equal opportunity bashing. I call it as I see it even if it means defending President Obama. So buckle your seat belt and hang on, I’m about to venture into new territory and do just that.
The self-test I use takes a serious degree of honesty…… to myself. I ask myself: If [whatever the topic or controversy is] were committed by President Ronald Reagan, would I be supportive of it or outraged by it? Perhaps partisan democrats could use the same test with Bill Clinton’s name.
In an unusual departure from its usual protection of, and water carrying for, the Obama Administration, NBC has revealed a 16 page memo that basically authorizes the targeted attack of US citizens when that person is: “located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in at least the following circumstances: 1) where an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; 2) where a capture operation would be infeasible-and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor the whether capture becomes feasible and; 3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles”.....
Simplified, all the memo is saying is that if this particular enemy combatant also happens to be a US citizen, it’s OK to shove a hellfire missile down his throat just like he was any other enemy combatant. That’s it. It doesn’t authorize them to open fire on Wayne’s World; they don’t have the green light to call in an artillery barrage on the NRA headquarters. All it really says is that our forces have the authority to engage the enemy even if one of the enemy combatants happens to be a US citizen. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
So, let’s apply my test. If this same memo were issued by a hypothetical Reagan Justice Department, would I be supportive of it or outraged by it? The answer is obvious. I would be absolutely supportive of it. So it would be disingenuous for me to drum up some fake moral outrage and exaggerate the circumstances for the sake of political hype.
It is also my humble opinion, that some on the right are now engaged in the usual political hackery (yeah, I just made that word up) and hypocrisy in that they are wringing their hands and making a huge mountain where not even a mole hill exists. Surely, if this same memo were issued 6 years ago these same partisan hacks would be in total support of it and would be rallying to defend it. Defend it against who? The very people who are now defending it!
If that same memo would have been released 6 years ago, all these roles would be reversed. The democrats would be decrying it at the top of their lungs (with the help of the now silent media) and the republicans would be telling us how it is necessary for victory in the war against our terrorist enemy.
It’s a political dance that Americans have been forced to suffer through since the beginning of our country. If one party be for it, the other is automatically against it. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers: “Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.” - The Federalist Papers, No. 70, 1788
225 years later, Hamilton’s words still ring true.