Last week, I countered Jonah Goldberg’s belief that all conservatives disdained and were horrified by Abu Ghraib, and argued that the magazine’s endorsement of almost all the techniques revealed at Abu Ghraib made Goldberg’s anti-Abu Ghraib position incomprehensible.
I know they have a policy of not responding to this blog but it does seem to me basic journalistic due diligence to respond to such a well-supported argument. So let me pose this question in the hope that someone cares enough about the reputation of National Review to respond.
Which of the techniques revealed at Abu Ghraib does NRO specifically disavow and which do they support? (To take one simple instance, does Goldberg support the technique shown above, with a hooded Muslim man being terrified by a dog he cannot see?) I summarize the techniques approved for us by Bush and Cheney in the post. Many of them were indeed used at Abu Ghraib as well as elsewhere.
So by what criteria do they distinguish what happened at Abu Ghraib from what Cheney and Bush mandated for prisoners in their “enhanced interrogation program”? This is an important question; and it deserves an answer.
The Dish 