These people are not making a good faith argument. They are transparent defenders of the indefensible. Arianna is right: this is a defining moment for America. This is not now and never has been a question of right versus left. It is right vs wrong. It is a bright line which the black-and-white crowd has suddenly decided is oh-so-gray. But we have their testimony now. And history has it for ever.
No, they are not making a good-faith argument. But really, this whole debate is a right/left issue.
What you have is a group of people who are upset at America's use of torture, and a second group of people who have decided that the first group is a threat to the GOP. The latter group knows it will be a huge black mark on their party if anyone bigger than Lynndie England goes down over this, and they are trying everything they can to make sure that never happens. They're the right. And they're convinced that anyone who questions the GOP is a leftist.
So when they tell other people that what happened “wasn’t really torture”, or that it only happened to the worst of the worst, or that the Dems were complicit too, they are simply trying to keep the uninformed from thinking so poorly of the GOP that they abandon the party. They need to maintain a mass of people who think questioning torture is some kind "witch hunt" in order to avoid mass exodus. It’s 100% partisan.
It's a right/left issue, but only in the sense that the "right' has decided that being tarnished by the prosecutions of Bush administration officials is a worse fate than allowing torture of a few people that nobody really liked anyway.
Dems were complicit too
I think they’ve made a misstep with this, as it gives Obama cover to go after the Yoo/Bybee/Addington swine. If he can somberly say “well, Democrats knew about this and didn’t object, and deserve some of the blame/shame too”, then it’s harder for the GOP to call it a witch hunt (they’ll do it anyway).
But I really can’t believe all these guys are willing to tie themselves to the torture ship as it’s going down. I mean, really? You’re going to defend that just because it was done by one of your guys? And so they all go on records saying (i) it wasn’t torture; (ii) if it was torture it saved americans; (iii) if it didn’t save americans, they were all bad guys anyway; (iv) if they weren’t all bad guys, nineleven nineleven nineleven.
And I can’t help but think that, if Bush had ordered that fingernails be pulled out and genitals electrocuted, etc., and had OLC memos that said it was all ok, that these same GOP asshats would be defending that too.
It really all is just a game to them, fuckers.
Also, the weak links here are Yoo and Rice (both of whom I’ve taken classes from, as it turns out). Yoo is a squish who might talk tough but if faced with the prospect of being put on trial for anything that might result in jail time he will squeal squeal squeal.
Rice is tougher, but I think she feels gamed by Cheney/Rumsfeld, who apparently treated her like sh1t the whole time (I recall one story where Bush asked her/Cheney/Rumsfeld and maybe Powell to work together to fix some problem that cheney/rumsfeld didn’t want fixed, and so when they had their first meeting they didn’t show and she ended up crying; also, apparently one/both of them wouldn’t return her calls until Bush specifically told them to). So, she’s ripe for spilling all the beans in exchange for immunity and getting back at the assholes who were constantly screwing her. In addition, I think she can rightly claim some (or maybe alot) of this shit went on behind her back (though she obviously eventually found out and went along). Plus, I think she’s very proud that there is an African American president and might be amenable to a personal appeal from him to come in and lay it all out for the good of the country (I recall from college that at some highly charged meeting with students some jackass questioned her commitment to African-American issues or her “blackness” because of her politics, which prompted a pretty harsh response from her; she lived in Alabama in the 50s and 60s).
The big factor on the other side is her loyalty to the Bush clan, to whom she owes the vast majority, if not all, of her career in politics.
Maybe I’m giving her too much credit (and Yoo too little), she did serve with that administration for 8 years.
It’s also “a question of right vs left” in the sense that (right/left) != (Republican/Democrat). As I see it, support for torture is fundamentally a right-wing position, because it assumes the rectitude of authority. Protecting the rights of the accused and the detained is part of the left-wing tradition.
i would lovelovelove to see Rice spill the beans. but yeah, you’re right: she’s probably too loyal to the Bushes to do it. on the other hand, i’d be happy to see someone squeeze the beans out of Yoo.
if i’d taken classes from those two, i’d be tempted to write a letter to the college asking them to refund that part of my tuition (rhetorically, of course).
As I see it, support for torture is fundamentally a right-wing position, because it assumes the rectitude of authority.
yup. obedience to a vengeful, punishing authority, especially seems like a conservative position – the Strict Father figure. maybe i’m blinded by my own prejudices (nah), but i can’t think of a lefty hero who fits that mold.
i’d be happy to see someone squeeze the beans out of Yoo.
Hey watch it dude — no endorsing torture…
aw come on!
maybe if we just squeezed his law license ? … or his ability to live a life outside of a jail cell ?