I was struck by how weak the president’s statement in his recent press conference about torture was. Here’s the quote:
We operate within the law and we send people to countries where they say they’re not going to torture the people.
I don’t think even the president can disguise the fact that he knows this formulation is, in fact, an admission of the use of torture under the guise of a denial. Since public and press scrutiny exposed some of the more easily-discovered atrocities, the White House has rescinded its 2002 memo permitting torture and the military has drawn up stricter guidelines, while scapegoating grunts for decisions made by superiors. Revealingly, Bush still won’t allow a legislative ban on CIA-deployed torture. What has really gone on in Guantanamo is anyone’s guess. Even the official report has found disturbing patterns of abuse. Then check out this important story on prison conditions in Uzbekistan, where we send alleged, i.e. unproven, terror suspects. When the president’s only criterion for sending suspects to foreign prisons is that the regimes merely “say” they don’t torture, and when no one (including, presumably, a half-way informed president) doubts that torture is indeed used, isn’t the president essentialy saying: “Yes, we do use torture. You wanna make something of it?” Actually, that is what he said. He followed his lame formulation denying torture with the following:
But let me say something: the United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It’s in our country’s interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm’s way [sic]. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that. We — we still at war.
There’s a lot of nudging and winking in that defense of torture. But a defense is what it is.
MEANS-TESTING SOCIAL SECURITY: For what it’s worth, I thoroughly support the idea of means-testing social security benefits (the crude description of the president’s proposal). It’s an honest way of addressing the looming insolvency of the system, while protecting the neediest. It’s nutty to send big entitlement checks to people already financially secure in their retirement. The patent weakness of Paul Krugman’s spluttering opposition today is evidence enough of the merit of the president’s plan. If Bush can do this, nudge the retirement age up and include add-on personal accounts, he can declare victory at some point. The Democrats’ current complacency is, in my view, unwarranted.
THEOCONS VERSUS LAURA: This is too precious a story to miss. It’s not very often that the president’s and his wife’s own closeted tolerance and humor reveal themselves this starkly. The contrast between who they really are and the forces that sustain them in power isn’t often so obvious. So enjoy the cognitive dissonance. Does Laura even know that “Desperate Housewives” is the creation of a gay man? Of course, the virulent homophobia of the religious right sometimes turns comic. The notion that hybrid cars are somehow “gay” is hilarious. (Actually, too hilarious. Like Drudge, I thought this was legit at first. It’s a spoof.)
CAMPUS PENIS DAYS: What’s not to like? My only concern is with the “Penis Monologues.” I’m more into dialogues myself.
STEWART’S GAYWATCH: Here’s an online video of the Daily Show’s hilarious “GayWatch” segment last week.
The Dish 