You're just saying that if it involves national security, all criticism is off limits. That's ridiculous
. Did I say that? Jeez, why can't leftists even quote properly and respond to a quote directly instead of responding to statements they themselves create? This happens with such frequency that it seems never getting it quite right is the signature of every leftist.
It's not 'immoral' to disagree with your government on matters of war.
Again, who claimed it was?
It would be unconscionable to expect citizens to not question decisions with such horrific costs, which we know going in. People of high ethics, fully understanding the issues, WILL disagree, often strongly, and when they do they have an obligation to protest what they feel is wrong.
Granted people with some knowledge have a duty too respond, not forgetting whose side they're on and how their government might be more effective. But let's not suppose one side is imbued with 'ethics' while their fellow citizens lack both ethics and morals. That feeds directly into your enemies hands, who also feel they're more ethical and moral than you. To believe that ethics and morals are exclusive to yourself is not rational.
We could post dueling opinion pieces all day, and yours is from an obviously right wing leaning outlet. But I'll take an early passage - 4th paragraph:
Anyone who disagrees with a leftist has to be 'right wing'. This is what you've been taught and this is what leftists clearly believe.
First of all, that no republican signed off in this era is hardly surprising. 20 years ago it would be - not today when votes that break exactly along party lines are the norm. Second, anyone with the slightest interest in the report knows that the committee has been fighting and negotiating with the WH and CIA for a year or so about what can and what cannot be released, at least. So the committee did not 'sit on' the report for two years. That's just misleading to the point of a lie.
Like Obamacare, this was designed, promoted and subsequently released on the American public by just one party. How is this constant divide doing the country any good? Can you not see the rifts these one-side initiatives are creating?
And, more importantly, this $4 million document, where no one involved was actually interviewed, effects national security and American lives. How is that ethical or moral?
Second, the author says several times the report is 'untrue' and 'highly biased' but doesn't provide details.
This article is just one among many being written. It is very worthwhile to do research and seek out diverse opinions on this very important document. Read what John Yoo has to say. He was certainly in a position to know what was going on. Read also what the CIA has to say, the former President and vice-President. How can there be a legitimate report when the sources with the information weren't interviewed?
John Yoo: A torture report for the dustbin - NY Daily News
No, you are with the Democrat Party. This is another clear instance of that party putting politics above the interests of the American people.
You avoided the point - questioning the government is the norm from conservatives on every issue except apparently the CIA on this subject.
We should always question the government but in sensitive areas of national security then perhaps there has to be a time of trust. No one should put the lives of their fellow Americans at risk in order to feel good about themselves.
Again, not the point. If right wingers can't accept the line from the various people about Benghazi after many hearings, you can't then question my 'morality' when I do the same with the CIA. .
Try to forget about this left wing/right wing wing/middle of the road argument. This is about national security and the lives of American people, as well as the lives of others in the democracies and those align themselves with the US in the war against Islamism. This does no good for anyone but instead creates unnecessary harm.