Even as Obama's nominee to be CIA director, Leon Panetta, made it clear that the administration would not prosecute CIA interrogators (who, incidentally, may have saved innocent lives with the information they elicited), he spouted the same specious rhetoric we have heard from the President on down:
Panetta said . . . that he believes the greatest weapon the United States has against terrorists is its moral authority and commitment to the rule of law.
Remember President Obama's inaugural address, seeded with this little gem?[O]ur security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
What utter silliness, masquerading as profundity. Actually, our security comes from our ability and willingness to defeat the terrorists, who couldn't care less about our "moral authority," or "commitment to the rule of law" or "the justness of our cause," or "the force of our example" or "humility and restraint."
Finally, it's worth pointing out that for seven long years, President Bush's administration kept this country secure -- even as the left accused him of undermining all the values Panetta and Obama extol. So how do those who adhere to the Obama/Panetta point of view square that paradox?