Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Kamala Harris's vomit-inducing virtue signaling and where we are as a culture

Harris presses her line of inquiry, with the appropriate self-congratulatory, smug facial expression, during Gina Haspel's confirmation hearing:

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) questioned CIA director nominee Gina Haspel's "suitability" to hold such a position on Wednesday.
Harris told Haspel during her Senate confirmation hearing that the selection of the CIA's new leader will be a "signal" to everyone around the world about American values.
She stated that Haspel had not answered if she believed previous interrogation techniques were immoral.
When Haspel did not answer the question multiple times, Harris grilled her further.
"Please answer yes or no. Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were immoral," she said in the tense exchange. 
Haspel had tried to explain to Harris that the tools available at the time were fully employed at the Thailand site in question in order to keep thousands if not millions more Americans from dying in catastrophic attacks and Harris just kept harping on this personally-believe-it-was-moral angle.

The obvious answer is, of course it's moral. Unless you hate Western civilization, it's a no-brainer.

This analogy is by no means original, but anybody who had a modicum of love in his or her heart for his or her family would subject any fellow human being to excruciating torment if he or she thought it might prevent his or her child or spouse from getting killed by bad guys.

But such is the climate in post-America that Haspel couldn't just full-throatedly respond thusly.

Harris has pulled this kind of crud at a number of confirmation hearings. One notable recent example is asking Mike Pompeo about his views on homosexuality and "climate change" at his hearing to become Secretary of State.

 It's sick and ugly and harmful to the prospects for post-America's revival.

13 comments:

  1. I'm a Christian, but what has that got to do with the subject of this post? And what do you mean by "deposed"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, did you ever hear tell of a martyr subjecting any fellow human being to excruciating torment if he or she thought it might prevent his or her child or spouse from getting killed by bad guys? I know it's tough, but you turn the other cheek. Deposed means being deposed or giving a deposition to counsel. Most of these legislators are lawyers, many of them prosecutors. Severe questioning is de rigeur. Not dog vomit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In other words, lay down and die and let the bad guys take over the world.

    You should rethink this business of applying "turn the other cheek" to jihadists. How many thousands, perhaps millions, of people it consigns to undeserved deaths. How badly it can set back civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harris wasn't after facts. She was engaging in moral preening.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yep, she has a long record as a prosecutor, like the ever so unkind and morally superior Trey Gowdy and Ted Cruz. It's what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You really have a regurgitation fetish, don't ya?
    :o)

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is relevant and important to note that Haspel's lack of certainty that torture in general and especially the torture for which she destroyed crucial evidence is itself immoral seems to have likewise moved John McCain to announce his rejection of her nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John McCain has long been the poster boy for Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome. "Maverick" and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Most Equal Comrade called him to thank him for his thumbs-down-on-repealing-the-"A"CA vote.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In other words, trotting him out as a way to convince conservatives that there's something wrong with Haspel seems like using the wrong tool for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He has a certain irrefutable expertise in the area under discussion that no pejorative labels can diminish.

    ReplyDelete