I’ve never quite understood the problem today’s Democrats have had with defending the decision of another Democrat, President Harry Truman, to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Surely no one thinks it was an attractive option. I can’t say I know someone who is totally psyched over the thought of killing over 140,000 people in the span of just seconds, leaving others to die from the aftereffects later on. I doubt Truman was jumping up and down when the news came that the mission had been accomplished.

And yet, just because something’s not an attractive option doesn’t mean it isn’t the best option from those you have, or that it can’t be defended. The alternative was Operation Downfall, a direct invasion of Japan that experts of the time believed would’ve cost the lives of about 268,000 American troops alone, never mind the death toll for the civilian population.

So why can’t a decision to end the war in a quicker manner, rather than drag it out and cost even more lives, be defended by a modern-day member of Truman’s own party? Why do morons like Jon Stewart consider Truman a war criminal for making the difficult decision that he did, while President Barack Obama refuses to defend said decision?

I wish I had an answer. I’m sure it lies somewhere with philosophical, Holier-than-thou liberal elitism of the modern-day Democratic Party. The same crap that leads its politicians to insist that waterboarding a single terrorist in order to save thousands or millions of American lives can’t be justified.

The village idiot understands the decision, and how it was the best option of every option available, before the Nobel laureate.