With just seven days left in our eight-year-long national nightmare, nearly everyone is holding their breath while praying to their favorite gods, hoping against hope that after two disastrous wars and the worst economic devastation since the Depression, the most incompetent administration of the modern era will leave office without causing any additional catastrophe. Everyone, that is, except for the 27 percent of the adult, telephone-owning population, which continues to tell CNN that George Bush has done a good job.
We may now count Newsweek editor-in-chief Jon Meacham among these Undoubting Thomases.
Those of us outside this magic minority have been cataloging the huge questions facing Barack Obama. Will his economic stimulus plan be enough to jump start a devastated economy? Will he keep his promise to make a prompt exit from Iraq? Will he come to his senses and reverse his disastrous campaign pledge to add tens of thousands of new combat troops to the quagmire of Afghanistan? How quickly will he close Guantánamo? And finally–and to many of us, most importantly—will his oft-repeated promise to end American torture to restore us to the community of civilized nations become a resounding passage in his Inaugural Address?
However, in Jon Meacham’s judgment, none of those questions matters as much as the one he has placed on the cover of the magazine sitting on thousands of news stands across America this morning. That question is: “What Would Dick Do?”
Still confused? Here is Mr. Meacham’s explication of that cover line inside the magazine: “the urgent question now is whether President Obama…confronted with the realities of office, will begin to see virtue in the antiterror apparatus Cheney helped Bush create.”
It is true that Newsweek’s cover story makes New York Timesmen Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane look like two of the most sophisticated torture reporters in Washington. And Champagne corks are surely popping on every floor of the CIA’s Langley headquarters to celebrate this extraordinary triumph of disinformation. However, the story’s “virtues” end there.
Written by Newsweek veteran Evan Thomas and National Journal contributor Stuart Taylor Jr., this article has no connection to serious journalism whatsoever.
Let us examine a few of its highlights:
The issue of torture is more complicated than it seems. America brought untold shame on itself with the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It’s likely that the take-the-gloves-off attitude of Cheney and his allies filtered down through the ranks, until untrained prison guards with sadistic tendencies were making sport with electric shock. But no direct link has been reported.
Leave aside for a moment the comforting image of “making sport with electric shock.” (The ACLU has documented the deaths of at least 160 prisoners in U.S. custody during the Bush administration, of which more than seventy were caused by “gross recklessness, abuse, or torture”: an unfortunate side effect of that “sport,” I suppose.) Let us focus instead on that tossed-off assertion of “no direct link” between Cheney and his allies and what happened on the ground in Iraq and Guantánamo.
The truth is, we know for a fact that all of the most heinous methods of torture used by this administration were aired at White House meetings attended by Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and CIA Director George Tenet. George Bush confirmed that those meetings took place in an interview with ABC correspondent Martha Raddatz last year. And just one month ago, Cheney boasted to ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl that he had personally approved of the program which led to waterboarding of alleged terrorists.
McClatchy reporters Tom Laseter and Matt Shofield have written that
the framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantánamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan … was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.
British human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands, meanwhile, wrote in “Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values” that
the decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions “was not a case of following the logic of the law but rather was designed to give effect to a prior decision to take the gloves off and allow coercive interrogation; it deliberately created a legal black hole into which the detainees were meant to fall. The new interrogation techniques did not arise spontaneously from the field but came about as a direct result of intense pressure … from Rumsfeld’s office. The Yoo-Bybee Memo was not simply some theoretical document … but rather played a crucial role in giving those at the top the confidence to put pressure on those at the bottom. And the practices employed at Guantánamo led to abuses at Abu Ghraib.
“The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies.” Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Richard Addington, former Justice Department lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and former Defense Department counsel James Haynes “became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.”
Finally, there is the summary of the Senate Armed Services Committee released last month: “The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.” (For a video summary of this history from Human Rights First, go here.)
- 1
- 2




Congratulations. Yoou have produced the most twisted , disengenuous over-the-top hit job I have ever seen. And I have seen some doozies.
I could reduce your arguments to drivel point by point but what is the use? Anyone who is this deep into the BDS fever swamps is not open to debate anyway.
Nice work. You are now eligible for the "Ward Churchill Truth in Journalism" award. Give my regards to Noam and the rest.
JLK
Posted by John Krier on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 05:43 PM
Thanks for your lucid reporting on this important topic once again, Mr. Kaiser. The stains of the BushCheney crimes against humanity will not fade from our nation's reputation until we confront them in the clear light of day, and collectively shame the apologists and perpetrators from their denials and equivocations.
Posted by melior on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 07:45 PM
I'm still hopeful that the AG will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and indict those responsible for these war crimes. One of the most basic American values, and one we executed Nazis for, is that we don't torture. If America's image is too be restored, then the new administration must understand that before we march forward into the sunlight we must exhume the ghosts of crimes past ...
Posted by Jemerson on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 12:40 AM
While 27% may support Bush, the number of people who subscribe to this far left rubbish is in the single digits. Luckily Obama recognizes this and is giving short shrift to your lunatic visions of retribution for imagined war crimes.
What surprises me is CJR's willingness to publish this crap. (Actually it doesn't surprise me, but don't the editors realize how completely it undermines any pretense of objectivity?)
Posted by JLD on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 08:00 AM
You halfwits (looking at you JLD and Krier) need to stop this what "What would Jack Bauer do?" nonsense.
Posted by surlybastard on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 09:16 AM
I could reduce your arguments to drivel point by point but what is the use?
Translation:
I can't answer you point by point, so instead I will insult you.
End Translation.
A gambit I have become all too familiar with during the Bush years.
Posted by Dominion on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 09:40 AM
The hawks and neocons in the media and elsewhere aren't going to go quietly. Right now they're swarming like cockroaches disturbed by the exterminator, though we can't be sure that they've actually lost. You'd think they'd hide their heads in shame, but they're deperate and have nothing to lose.
/ eliminationism
Posted by John Emerson on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 11:48 AM
I hope there is no Addington other than David. One is enough.
Posted by Flamethrower on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 12:47 PM
Krier
By their own admission, the principals did the same things we prosecuted others for at Nuremburg. [Saying "I could refute this but what's the use" is a typical right wing copout.] Constitutional provisions were not summarily ignored during World War II. (Except the Japanses internment which is universally recognized now as repugnant.) Yet we survived fine. Now, "terrorists" have right wingers hiding under the bed screaming "suspend the constitution!" This is an extreme form of cowardice that has gripped just about the entire conservative movement. Cant say Im surprised. Keep it up, guys, and have fun in the political wilderness until such time as you have passed emotional and intellectual puberty.
Posted by Cicero on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 01:18 PM
I discuss the Newsweek cover with Rachel Maddow on her radio show on Air America tonight (Tuesday, 1/13) : http://airamerica.com/listen
Posted by Charles Kaiser on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 02:43 PM
Krier and JLD: Please, enlighten me: how is being anti-torture "far left"? Since when is abiding by the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution a radical proposition? This stuff was brought on us by a bunch of lawyers who paid no heed to the ins and outs of interrogation or to the consequences of torture. Meanwhile, a huge number of military leaders have come out against these policies. I guess they're all hanging out with Noam Chomsky?? Huh?
I've tried -- really tried -- to listen to and understand the arguments for "enhanced interrogation techniques." My favorite is the "terrorist in custody who knows where a ticking time bomb is but laughingly refuses to tell you its location" -- the Jack Bauer scenario. These arguments betray willful ignorance.
There is a dangerous strain of not only American exceptionalism, but also of "War on Terror" exceptionalism -- the idea that the US has never, ever in its history faced a threat this great (nor has any other country throughout the history of the world). The idea is that this threat is so great that the people who drafted the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution and everyone in between could not have foreseen it. Adams, Henry, Washington, Franklin, etc., etc., are thereby reduced to a bunch of "far left," bed-wetting liberals whom we can dismiss as dreamers with a pat on the head. Why is this not considered anti-American???
The funny thing is, the framers of the Constitution DID foresee these conditions. They understood the circumstances under which people in positions of power would try to grab for more power.
I am terrified by the notion that there are people in this country -- presumably those 27%, along with Krier and JLD -- who think that our Constitution is fine most of the time, but not all the time. Not when it doesn't suit a small number of people in one branch of government. If that's the case, why don't we just tear it up? Screw it -- let's just tear it up and become like everybody else. Hey, let's become like Putin's Russia!! Woohoo!
If we can push aside our principles, how are they actually principles? And if we don't have principles, what sets us apart from our enemies?
Posted by Nick Peterson on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 02:50 PM
Let me preface these remarks by stating that I substantially agree with Kaiser's argument that officials in various executive government agencies are responsible for torture and abuse of prisoners, and that these actions are outrageous and almost certainly illegal.
That said, I believe that the following claim is potentially misleading:
"The trouble is, this claim [that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11/2001] obscures the fact that every other administration since Pearl Harbor can boast of the same accomplishment, without having committed any war crimes."
In fact, there was at least one terrorist attack on US soil between 1942 and 2001, the bombing of the World Trade Center parking garage in February of 1993. Furthermore, depending on how one defines a series of controversial notions, not least of which is the definition of "terrorism", one may assert that there was a second terrorist attack during Clinton administration, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April 1995.
Of course, in each of those cases the perpetrators (at least the primary actors and many conspirators) were arrested and convicted without gross violations of US or international law.
Again, none of this should take away from the article's central arguments. But given the depth of emotion surrounding these issues it may be advisable to keep one's factual assertions above reproach.
Posted by nit-picker on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 03:20 PM
I second Nick Peterson: I would like to know how my concern for top elected officials to abide by their oaths of office (i.e. "protect and defend the Constitution") qualifies me as being "far left." I'm not saying I'm not, it's just that I've never considered valuing the rule of law, both domestically and with regards to international treaties that the US is signatory to, as being the exclusive domain of the left. If it is, then that says a lot (none of it good) about the right.
Posted by Valkyrie607 on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 05:50 PM
"Yoou have produced the most twisted , disengenuous over-the-top hit job I have ever seen. And I have seen some doozies.
I could reduce your arguments to drivel point by point but what is the use? "
Posted by John Krier on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 05:43 PM
Krier,
I could reduce YOUR arguments to drivel....If you had any arguments. And I cannot think of what I might reduce your drivel to, so have a nice day.
Posted by Sir Loin of Beef on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 08:19 PM
“I would like to know how my concern for top elected officials to abide by their oaths of office (i.e. "protect and defend the Constitution") qualifies me as being "far left."”
That’s a fair question. I am (believe it or not) happy that there are advocates that seek to act as a check on government abuses. This is a necessary vigilance for a functioning democracy.
What I do not appreciate is your predilection to exaggerate supposed abuses by the Bush administration, and to take as unchallenged fact every defense uttered by the detainees. The same far-left loons that listen in quiet respect to “poetry” from terrorists in Gitmo can’t wait to pounce on every utterance by Bush as being proof of evil incarnate.
In short, you give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but not our own elected officials.
Exaggerations of Bush’s record, such as blaming him directly for Abu Gharab, are utterly false. Extrapolating the one documented use of water boarding against KSH to imply that it was done indiscriminately is willfully disseminating a lie.
Advocates also have a responsibility to get the facts straight. Remember Newsweek’s lie about flushing the Koran down the toilet? People died thanks to that article.
How many suicide bombers do you think were recruited thanks to your own exaggerations? Exaggerations and misinformation hurt the country, and undermine our place in the world.
Posted by JLD on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 10:53 PM
Looks like we found another far left lunatic willing to believe any lie about the Bush administration: Bush administration official Susan Crawford!
JLD and others, what force of denial allows you to view the copious evidence brought forth by Kaiser here, and countless others elsewhere, as isolated, exaggerated incidents? We have the testimony of hundreds of now-freed detainees and victims of renditions, a few low-level whistleblowers, anonymous former military interrogators, incisive interviews with Army privates, and now a Congressional commission's report, all of which point conclusively to a culture of torture received as top-down policy.
You're simply avoiding the available information.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 09:43 AM
My interview with Rachel Maddow about this is here:
http://airamerica.com/content/maddow-newsweek-calls-obama-continue-bush-torture-policy
Posted by Charles Kaiser on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 09:48 AM
Most journalism texts suggest that a writer who makes grammatical errors diminishes his authenticity. Please note: "...everyone is holding their breath..."
hmmmm.
Posted by John Mohn on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 11:05 AM
"Most journalism texts suggest that a writer who makes grammatical errors diminishes his authenticity."
If so, why does anyone read 'National Review' anymore? Kathryn Jean Lopez and Jonah 'Pantsload' Goldberg are the absolute worst at grammatical errors in their posts, yet I never see condescending attacks by wingnuts about such errors or their supposed authenticity, it's only when a member of the vast liberal conspiracy makes an error that the claws come out.
hmmmmm.....? I guess it's kind of like when USA+torture=GOOD, anyone else+ torture=BAD. Thanks for the lesson in hypocrisy John.
Posted by Wilson Reese on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 02:14 PM
"Most journalism texts suggest that a writer who makes grammatical errors diminishes his authenticity."
If so, why does anyone read 'National Review' anymore? Kathryn Jean Lopez and Jonah 'Pantsload' Goldberg are the absolute worst at grammatical errors in their posts, yet I never see condescending attacks by wingnuts about such errors or their supposed authenticity, it's only when a member of the vast liberal conspiracy makes an error that the claws come out.
hmmmmm.....? I guess it's kind of like when USA+torture=GOOD, anyone else+ torture=BAD. Thanks for the lesson in hypocrisy John.
Posted by Wilson Reese on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 02:16 PM
"The same far-left loons that listen in quiet respect to 'poetry' from terrorists in Gitmo can’t wait to pounce on every utterance by Bush as being proof of evil incarnate." I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about the "poetry." The implication is that anyone who wants to uphold the Constitution is a "far-left loon" -- you know, like all the military prosecutors who are appalled by what a hash the Administration made of all the evidence and by reports of torture, and who are actually now DEFENDING detainees? The retired military brass speaking out against torture? Have you not heard about the Senate report? Have you not listened to Gen. Taguba?
I guess the implication is that anyone who wants to uphold the principles on which the US is founded is a terrorist coddler. If this weren't so laughable, it would be offensive. So I love terrorists? Okay, well... well... you're a POOPY head! There!
"In short, you give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but not our own elected officials." We are guided in this country by the notion that we don't just assume people's guilt. We have to prove it. The laws are different in military jurisprudence form civilian, but the principle stands. Welcome to America. The people running Gitmo have released most detainees because they were actually NOT terrorists (I guess that makes this Administration lefty and loony?) We had a policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan of giving out cash rewards for anyone "terrorists" -- so what did the warlords and gangsters do? They rounded up enemies of theirs, handed them to the Americans, and pocketed the cash. Tell me, please, how that helps our security.
No one advocates giving the benefit of the doubt to someone whose guilt is proven. Dial down your rhetoric, please.
"Exaggerations of Bush’s record, such as blaming him directly for Abu Gharab, are utterly false. Extrapolating the one documented use of water boarding against KSH to imply that it was done indiscriminately is willfully disseminating a lie." Have you not heard of Cheney's push to go to the "dark side"? How he and Rumsfeld personally approved of interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under the Geneva Conventions? About this Administration's characterization of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint"? I heard Cheney last night say that all techniques had gone under legal review -- well, yeah, by Yoo and others, who essentially cobbled together excuses to use torture. These guys have essentially re-defined everything so that their methods can be seen as beyond reproach. Cheney has even said his office is actually part of the legislative branch so as to avoid review of the executive branch.
I am baffled by the ability of this Administration to talk out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand they're able to say that they haven't approved torture. On the other, they have bragged about the gloves coming off. Actually, I guess I shouldn't be baffled -- if stress positions, waterboarding, etc. are not torture, then there is no torture. If this isn't Orwellian, I don't know what is.
There is serious confusion between effectiveness and the satisfaction of feeling tough. Hey, part of me would love to beat and torture terrorists as much as the next guy -- believe me. I'd feel very gratified. I'd LOVE to see them suffer and whimper. But based on what John McCain always said (until he was in the midst of his presidential campaign) about how torture is ineffective; based on what so many other retired military personnel have said; based on what the FBI said about not getting any good information about of torture, I just think it's dumb. It's lazy and ineffective. Not only that, but it also violates everything we stand for as a country, and it goes against the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions -- those radical, left-loon documents.
"Advocates also have a responsibility to get the facts straight. Remember Newsweek’s lie about flushing the Koran down the toilet? People died thanks to that article." You are absolutely right. We all have that responsibility. And many news organizations have been incredibly sloppy.
"How many suicide bombers do you think were recruited thanks to your own exaggerations? Exaggerations and misinformation hurt the country, and undermine our place in the world." This is a very good question. You may be right that the incident pushed still more young men into the arms of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The problem is that we were already in an environment in which such stories were completely believable. If Americans are known to subject prisoners to waterboarding, electric shock, stress positions, etc., then anything is believable. This is not to excuse the Koran story, but your question is kind of like looking at a building set on fire and disproportionately focusing on the guy who broke a window by accident -- thereby letting in air and exacerbating the fire -- rather than the arsonist.
George Washington insisted that captured British and Hessian soldiers be treated well during the Revolution. This softened the enemy, because they would be more willing to surrender knowing that they would be fed and given shelter, and NOT tortured or shot.
Yeah, George Washington -- well known by all of us as a far left loon.
Posted by Nick Peterson on Thu 15 Jan 2009 at 04:53 PM
Nick, we're not going to agree on this but I do appreciate your thoughtful and even handed rebutta (except for the Poopy Head part).
Even Obama realizes that these are bad characters, and some that were released went back to create terror, including suicide bombing. I'll be watvching with interest to see how he handles it.
And somehow I think the press will be a bit softer on him than they have been on the Bush administration.
Posted by JLD on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 05:02 AM
"We're" not going to agree on this because you are in complete denial. For every detainee who returned to the battlefield, there are 10 victims of detention/rendition who spent years away from their families being tortured for no reason, or killed. I don't see this as a terribly good track record for a free society.
The reason the press has been "softer" on Obama, in your view, is that he has approached this issue with the care it deserves, and without the condescending pieties the Bush administration used as a crutch. It's also a problem that he had no hand in creating, a fact I'm sure you must be capable of comprehending.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 09:35 AM
From today's Washington Post:
"In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, the president-elect pledged quick action on the Middle East once he takes office, promised to support voting rights for D.C. residents, and said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office."
So now Obama is willing to wait FOUR YEARS to close Gitmo? I'd call that approaching the subject with care!
And imagine, just for a moment, that a president-elect McCain had made this statement after promising to close Gitmo. It would be broadcasted from the skies - the Times would have a field day. But Obama? Hey, no problem!
Posted by JLD on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 01:21 PM
Now you're flailing. He's said on multiple occasions that its an immediate priority. Over a year ago he was cautioning that, while it was his intent to have it closed, it might take longer for all of the integrals to come together. He hasn't said anything since the election that has broken with that in a major way. The idea that the Times and Post are suppressing a policy shift on his part is a complete delusion.
It's continually amazing to see how worked up folks like you can get about the alleged bias of the New York Times, but the epic documented wrongdoings of the Bush Administration dont affect you in the slightest. Secret memos, borrowing tactics from CIA manuals, illegal eavesdropping? No big deal. But as soon as the Times fails to punish Obama for speaking with some nuance on a topic, the sky is falling.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 02:01 PM
Hey that's good - when in doubt, just deny. Four years = nuance?
I wonder if anyone else on Planet Earth thought Obama meant it would take four years to close Grtmo?
I guess we just have to wait for those "integrals" to come together!
Posted by JLD on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 07:26 PM
JLD,
I believe Obama was referring to GITMO's entire elimination. If you've read up on this, you can easily see how this is not going to be an easy task. For one example, it seems unimaginable that the US can refuse to take some or many of these ex-terrorists (once tried) into the country. Yet, think of the difficulty of placing them in communities. There's bound to be a public backlash which will take some real nuance to get through.
I'll be happy if the place is closed in a year, with most detainees out. The few are probably going to go into military prisons. That, I'm assuming, is where the four years figure comes from.
JJ
Posted by even handed on Sat 17 Jan 2009 at 03:07 AM
I'm sure Evan would be thrilled to have Gitmo detainees as neighbors - he's a real nuanced guy.
But your point is correct – Gitmo is a difficult problem, not easily solvable.
Which is why (to bring this back full circle) the Obama administration will very likely be asking themselves “What would Dick do?” - and taking his advice.
Posted by JLD on Sat 17 Jan 2009 at 04:26 AM
Mr. Krier, ou're joking, right?
Posted by Heaviest Cat on Sun 18 Jan 2009 at 03:49 PM
"Gitmo is a difficult problem" created, in part, by Dick Cheney. The detentions at Gitmo were formulated precisely to thwart any notions of the US domestic legal system, a terrible temporary solution that showed little foresight, and even contempt for those who would have to resolve it. The idea that anyone would look to Dick Cheney for sage advice in solving it is complete nonsense. It's his monster.
But then, you're remarkably quick to jump on Obama for what is a semantic flap. He has made numerous statements in recent weeks indicating that it is a first-year priority. He has spoke candidly on the challenges it poses. His AG has also expressed that it will be closed. In that interview, he merely said he would be upset if it had taken him 4 years.
But do go on crowing about hypocrisy. Your concern is quite believable.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Mon 19 Jan 2009 at 09:10 AM
I was drawn to your article via your excellent interview on FAIR's 1/15/09 edition of its radio program, CounterSpin. Finally, courageous journalists like yourself are pointing out that the emperor - - mainstream media - - has no clothes. The NYTimes, Newsweek/Wash Post, CNN, et al, have been acting for eight years like the Bush Administration's PR Firm, always willing to pass on their amazingly self-delusional falsehoods about the morality and effectiveness of torture. It's about time someone of your stature pointed out the truth about torture: that it doesn't work, it is counter productive and it is the most sickening, and destructive distortion of Constitutional Law since authorizing the first aggressive war in US history using lies as its justification.
It's obvious that the previous person to leave a comment is describing himself more than he is you when he describes your objective observations as "liberal" when, in spite of the established fact that torture does not work, he still clings to the fantasy that Cheney continues to spew. And, we wonder what the people of Germany were thinking when they allowed the fascists to rise to power. I think we can see very clearly what they were thinking when people maintain, against logic, law, morality and the facts, that torture is a good policy.
Thank you for representing REAL American values that are based on law, and helping to counter what Cheney wold have us believe is a necessary and perpetual series of decisions that are one and all, exceptions to law.
Posted by Carl Williams on Mon 19 Jan 2009 at 02:39 PM
“NYTimes, Newsweek/Wash Post, CNN, et al, have been acting for eight years like the Bush Administration's PR Firm, always willing to pass on their amazingly self-delusional falsehoods”
Amazing… the Times acting as Bush’s PR firm? Who knew??
So Carl thinks our media (private institutions all) should refuse to report what our elected official say? What a great idea! You are right to invoke the Nazis – they’d be proud of your logic.
And Carl, I think the word here is not “liberal” but “loon.”
Posted by JLD on Tue 20 Jan 2009 at 12:45 AM