Reporter Wonders how White has “Moral Authority” when Using Drones


The Obama administration came down on the side of Senate Democrats when they released the so called “torture report,” that sought to bring shame down upon our intelligence agencies (specifically the CIA). The Democrats feigned outrage at the methods used by the CIA to wring information from captured terrorists… but as Josh Earnest points out how can Democrats pretend to be outraged when they have no problem killing the same terrorists (and many innocents) with drones!?

(This does bring up an interesting point… why are all liberals seemingly bothered by “enhanced interrogations” or even torture, but somehow fine with President Obama’s drone program? Do you think these terrorists would rather be waterboarded or have bomb dropped on their heads – a bomb which also happens to kill their families and neighbors? I think the “torture” might be the more humane route – and by the way I happen to be against torture – I just think the liberal hypocrisy stinks.)



After discussion of how the Obama administration can criticize the Bush administration on terrorism policies while using Bush administration officials who agreed with their policies on interrogating terrorists, Fox News reporter Ed Henry asks this brilliant query.

Ed Henry: Okay. You have repeatedly talked about moral authority. So can you explain how the President believes that it’s un-American to use these techniques but it was okay to ramp up the drone policy and basically thousands of people around the world, innocent civilians were killed. What’s the moral equivalency there? How do you have moral authority when innocent civilians are killed by drones?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think that the difference here, Ed — and this is a stark difference in the way that the United States conducts our policy and the way that terrorists around the world conduct their policy — that there is significant care taken and there are significant checks and balances that are included in the system to ensure that any counterterrorism action that’s taken by the United States of America does not put at risk innocent lives.

Ed Henry: But they do in the end. I understand there are safeguards, but in the end, we’ve seen many cases around the world where U.S. drones have killed innocent civilians, despite those safeguards. So how do you have moral authority?

MR. EARNEST: What I’m saying is that is a stark difference from the tactics that are employed by our enemies, who seek to use car bombs to actually target innocent civilians.

Ed Henry: Yet you still kill civilians. No one is defending the terrorists’ tactics, but by your tactics —

MR. EARNEST: But you’re asking about our moral authority, and I think there is a very clear difference.

Ed Henry: How do you have moral authority if —

MR. EARNEST: There is a very clear difference between the tactics that are used by terrorists and the counterterrorism tactics that are employed by the United States of America that go to great lengths to protect the lives of innocent civilians. In fact, many of these terrorists that we’re talking about — and, again, many of these counterterrorism activities that are used against terrorists are targeting terrorists that themselves have targeted local populations, that have targeted fellow Muslims in some situations. So the efforts that are taken by this administration to limit or to prevent innocent civilian casualties are consistent with our values and are consistent with our broader strategy for protecting the American people.