So far, the Bushists and their apologists in the pro-torture, anti-law wing of the conservative movement have tried numerous defenses against their culpability for illegal and unconscionable torture and prisoner abuse:
- The Jackson 5 defense: "The abuses are the work of a few bad apples, and one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl."
- The patent bullshit defense: "The United States doesn't torture."
- The Minitru defense: "We've redefined the word 'torture'. 'Torture' has never included anything less than total organ failure."
- The necessity defense, Darth Cheney style: "There's a one percent chance that a time bomb is ticking somewhere in the world."
It's all bullshit.
4 comments:
You are all over the place. No one was tortured for information in Abu Gharaib - there were posed pictures by rogue guards, all of whom were tried and sentenced appropriately. That has nothing to do with the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques that Jane Harman herself DID try to stop and to which Nancy did not sign her John Hancock and waffles about to this day. I thought Barack's backtracks and broken promises were breaking you down, but are you a liberal or just a Dem apologist?
Let's see, only "torture for information" is bad, illegal, immoral? What a typical, hair-splitting, bullshit implication. The Bushists would be proud.
You couldn't connect dots with explicit instructions, could you? You don't even remember that the role of Graner, England, et al was to soften up prisoners prior to interrogation. You don't remember the use of exposure, stress positions, sexual abuse, the threats of electrocution, the sensory deprivation alternated with sensory overload, the beatings, the deaths.
I'm willing to follow the investigation where it leads. Pelosi's complicity - and that of Democrats - however much or little there is of it, is a legitimate part of any investigation. But it's a tiny sideshow of the big Bushist picture of initiation, self-justification, rationalization, and performance of torture done exclusively by the Republican-held executive branch, in clear and obvious violation of the law.
Who's the apologist here? You're really entirely full of shit.
"Breaking [me] down"? Now there's a laugh. I realize of course that you owe unbreakable fealty to your set of ideas. It's too bad they're false ideas, but you'd sooner die than to give in to reason.
>entirely full of shit.
would you just give up those Sullivan constructions? 'Full of shit' is entirely enough
Was England the little girl with the Kodak camera? What actionable intelligence was she trained in acquiring from these inmates? She had snuck into the prison to visit her boyfriend. You gotta stick with one thing: waterboarding by CIA approved by Bush lawyers. Stick with it, it's a real winner and you don't want to get off track. Pelosi was a real treat today when she did not stick with it and relearned us that 'at the same time', Bush was "misleading about weapons of mass destruction" amazingly she worked the lie about imminant, too. So don't ramble like Nancy, or we may need a congressional committee to sort out the truth, as she will now face.
Thanks for your "advice."
I don't read Sullivan often, so it would be hard for me to be mimicking his style even if I wanted to.
Try to remember the joys of Abu Ghraib. The reservists, including Lynndie England (look it up), who abused their prisoners were softening them up for interrogation by contractors, who were probably CIA or near-CIA.
Sorry, this - and Bagram, too, among others - are part and parcel of the Gitmo abuses. They all belong in the same sewer, and they all have the same source at the highest levels of the Bushist regime.
Post a Comment