Taylor’s Takes: 2025 Dems would have shed tears for bin Laden
Just as there were so many sudden health experts during Covid, Monday morning war generals have come out of the woodwork…
Democrats are once again cheering for the [less than] 10% side of the argument, as is so often the case lately, this time rallying around the lives of narco-terrorists, who will forever remain in their watery graves.
Earlier this year, President Trump declared drug-smuggling fiends speeding from Venezuela to American shores in their makeshift gunboats narco-terrorists. The fentanyl-peddling paddlers, merchants of death all, were now seen as viable targets by the United States military. President Trump turned the decades-long War on Drugs into an actual war.
Democrats immediately bristled and recoiled at the thought of American firepower being trained upon actual imminent threats to the United States, rather than being used half a world away to support a corrupt country few could locate on a globe. They called into question the campaign’s constitutionality. Trump and his Department of War ignored them and continued to fight to save the lives of Americans by cutting off the flow of lethal drugs.
Never letting a good (or bad) controversy go to waste, the Democrat party, i.e., the media, is flailing its arms at a new angle in Trump’s efforts. Earlier this week, the Washington Post cited all-too-convenient anonymous sources who claimed that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike on a single suspected drug smuggling vessel after being informed there may have been survivors of the first drone strike.
Just as there were so many sudden health experts during Covid, Monday morning war generals have come out of the woodwork claiming that the second strike on the Venezuelan drug boat in early September was a violation of the Department of War’s own Law of War Manual which states, “persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck, such that they are no longer capable of fighting, are hors de combat.”
Hors de combat. French for “out of combat.” Great. We’re making rules based on France’s stellar reputation for fighting a war.
The rule, or the interpretation of the rule, is out of date. These rules apply to civilized societies engaged in strategic combat. They do not apply to the suppliers of weaponized poison that kills 100,000 Americans each year.
This was a double-tap on a vessel carrying terrorists who were hell bent on crippling the minds of anyone willing to ingest their bioweapon, weakening the economic base of our country, not to mention tearing families to shreds.
The Democrats of today would have tried to save the life of Osama bin Laden with this logic. The Al-Qaeda mastermind was technically unarmed when SEAL Team 6 neutralized him in 2011. And he killed fewer Americans than fentanyl has claimed.
If liberals had their way, weapons of war would be limited to single-shot muskets. And for each ball fired by Americans, their enemy would get the same chance to kill them.
Democrats love their equity so much that they don’t know when to put it down.
