About AJ DiCintio
A.J. DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on
the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up.
Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and
polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
When the financial and auto industries joined
the mortgage business in being sickened by a virus composed exclusively
of DNA from piggishly porcine VIP’s of the public and private sectors,
Democrats had all the excuse they needed to deny all three outpatient
status and insist they receive treatment behind the tightly closed doors
of the federal ICU.
Now, every common sense person knows that when
politicians shout "crisis” to justify centralizing power and wielding it
under a cloak of super-secrecy, we can expect bad things to happen.
And they are happening, as illustrated by
"We Are All Socialists Now” (Newsweek)
"We’re All Keynesians Again” (WSJ and The
"We’re All Swedes Now” (Washington Post)
However, I don’t bring up those headlines to
discuss their full significance — though that discussion is of crucial
importance. I bring them up because they remind us that the "Torture
Debate” has created another important headline: "We’re All Values Voters
Yes, we are, indeed, because the
LiberalChurch has finally given its imprimatur
to the word "values.”
Of course, the truth is that those who mock
citizens living by Traditional Values, Small Town Values, and Suburban
Values or vilify any person tainted by even a smidgen of Middle Class
Values have actually been values voters all along.
Problem was that until Barack Obama showed the
way by openly and proudly revealing his devotion to "San Francisco
Values” and its international counterpart, "les valeurs de Paris,”
liberals just couldn’t summon the courage to be honest about their true
But Fate has doubly smiled upon liberals; for,
in addition to blessing them with The One, she has fated into existence
the pharmaceutical named The Torture Inquisition, which has served as a
values Viagra, enabling liberals, sweaty in the heat of purely political
excitement, to ejaculate a million "values” in the last month alone.
Yes, a million disgusting sights and sounds.
Fortunately, however, the following three examples tell us all we need
"What I have said . . . is that waterboarding
violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I
do not think that is just my opinion; that is the opinion of many who
have examined the topic. And that is why I put an end to these [sic]
practices.” (Barack Obama)
"We could have gotten [the information
obtained through "torture”] in other ways, in ways that were consistent
with our values, ways that were consistent with who we are.” (Barack
should repudiate torture . . . because . . . it degrades us and runs
counter to our national values.” (Richard Cohen,
In addition to their million emotional
invocations of the "v” word, liberals (including the president) have
gone gaga over two observations made by Andrew Sullivan ("The Daily
. . . First, that Churchill forbade torture
because he "knew that embracing [it] was the equivalent of surrender to
the barbarism he was fighting.”
. . . Second, that under Churchill’s guidance,
Colonel Robin "Tin Eye” Stephens "refined psychological intimidation to
an art form.” As a result, Sullivan informs us, the colonel became the
greatest interrogator who ever shot the enemy full of questions, as
evidenced by the interrogation of "some 500 enemy spies” under his
supervision, "all but a tiny handful [of whom] crumbled” under the
"personality, tone, and rapidity of questions” that created an
A "blast” of "psychological intimidation” that
could break the will of the most hardened German spy? Those Nazis surely
would have preferred the waterboarding room!
The point, of course, is that Obama and other
liberals who have picked up on the "Churchill Argument” aren’t
displaying the value called honesty because in reality, they regard
whatever "Tin Eye” was doing as torture.
After all, Obama et al. insist that even a
terrorist who has information about a nuclear or biological weapon to be
used against an American city be questioned according to the standards
set forth in the US Army Field Manual (2-22.3).
". . . and
no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as
defined in US law.”
And if the prisoner refuses to give even his
name? (In the case of terrorists, we can forget about rank and serial
number.) Well, given how a liberal activist judge would define "cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,” the interrogator can
take the rest of the day off.
But liberals refuse to speak that truth.
Instead, the same people who publish to the world every detail
(including photos) of the Bush administration’s "illegal” interrogation
methods speak smugly of obtaining information by "other
ways” without providing us with a word of description of those "ways,”
let alone a mountain of hard evidence about their efficacy.
Why this deceit and hypocrisy? Well, there are
many reasons, including the usual ones: Liberal Arrogance ("Whatever I
think is real.”) and Liberal Airheadedness (Whatever I dream or
hallucinate is real.”).
But there is another reason liberals must huff
and puff and pose and posture about torture instead of squaring with the
By super-landslide margins on the issue,
Americans disagree with liberal visions of "our values” and "who we
Consider, for example, the April ’09 poll by
the PewResearchCenter on the following question:
"Do you think the use of torture against
suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be
justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be
(Notice that the question allows respondents
to define and imagine the concept of torture any way they wish.)
Here are the results, which, by the way,
reveal a slight uptick in pubic support for "torture” right in the
middle of the Democratic/liberal anti-torture crusade and inquisition.
Pew reports that 15% of Americans believe
"torture” is "Often” justified, while 34% say "Sometimes,” and 22% say
"Rarely” — for a total of 71% who approve of "torture” in at least some
(Goodness gracious! 71% of all Americans will
be shocked to learn not only that they are a bunch of "crazy, right-wing
extremists” but also that they are part of a "vast right-wing
conspiracy” to destroy American values.)
In contrast, 25% of the population believe
"torture” is "Never” justified.
(Goodness gracious, again! To hear Obama tell
it, everybody who cares about "values” and "who we are” is on his
side of the Torture Debate.)
Neither do the views of Independents provide
any solace for Democrats and liberals; for smack in the middle of the
current uproar, 19% of Independents respond "Often,” 35% "Sometimes,”
23% "Rarely” — for a total of 77%.
Only 19% of Independents say "Never.”
(If Democrats didn’t desperately need their
votes, they would, in a San Francisco
minute, call Independents out as a bunch of unthinking, unfeeling,
So, what does all this say?
Well, at the very least it says that with
respect to defining and using torture, liberals and the great majority
of Americans are light years apart.
It says that liberals don’t know and don’t
want to know anything about "who we are” and the "values we hold,”
arrogantly presuming that everyone regards the dogmas of the
LiberalChurch as absolute truths.
And finally, it says that
elections have consequences, in this case — because liberals consider
turning the thermostat up or down in a room in which a psychopathic
terrorist is being interrogated an act of "torture” — consequences that
could find us staring at a television screen one terrible day,
wide-eyed, mouths agape, and frozen to the bone in stupefied