Category: The Dish

Here’s a fascinating dialogue with Ed Meese on his view of the interrogation techniques initiated by this White House. It’s fascinating because it reveals wilfull ignorance of what’s going on and a relentless incuriosity about it. I think this has typified many Republican partisan responses to the question of torture.

Wil S. Hylton: Another outcry lately has been over the uses of interrogation techniques that involve sleep deprivation and uncomfortable positions. Do you think that the Bush administration has pushed the boundaries on that?

Ed Meese: I don’t know. A lot of this has been classified. There have been a lot of accusations, but I haven‚Äôt seem much evidence, so I really don‚Äôt know enough to render a judgment. But my own belief is that the administration is committed not to engage in anything that we would call torture. They‚Äôre committed to humane treatment.

WH:  It seems like some of these techniques, like waterboarding, are a long way from humane.

EM:  Well, again, I have a great deal of confidence that the administration would not engage in torture.

WH:  Would you call that torture?

EM:  I don’t know. I don’t know about waterboarding.

WH:  It’s putting a wet rag over someone’s mouth and making them think that they‚Äôre going to drown.

EM:  Yeah, I don’t know. As I said, I don’t know enough about it to give a firm determination.

WH:  That doesn’t necessarily sound like torture to you?

EM:  I don’t know whether they’re doing that.

WH:  And if they are?

EM:  I don’t know, because I don’t know enough about it.

WH:  I’m asking, if that is what they’re doing, does that sound like torture?

EM:  Well, I’d have to find out how long they do it and whether it does create the impression of drowning. I’ve never heard of this using a washcloth in their mouth before.

As Edmund Burke once remarked, "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." And nothing they have done.

This really is one for the books. It’s an email sent by Republican candidate, Rae Hart Anderson, who lost his race for a seat in the Minnesota Senate to a Democratic Hindu. Money quote:

The race of your life is more important than this one–and it is my sincere wish that you’ll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine–and especially for those who accept His forgiveness. His kingdom will come and His will be done–on earth as it is in heaven. There’s more….I love belonging to the family of God. Jesus is the way, the truth and offers His life to you and each human being. Pay attention…this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself…at some moment in time, yet??? …

Jesus Christ lives in His earth family by His Spirit. He said He’d be back, and He said it first. You could invite Him to make the race of your life ‘eternal’. God waits to be gracious to each person that knows they need to be forgiven. Do you? I think you do.

And some Republicans are still asking why they lost. The denial continues.

You wonder why the British smile can be a little gruesome? You haven’t met the British National Health Service, the one part of the Soviet Union that still survives.

First, they came for the homos, then the near-dead, then the pregnant women. But you know who their ultimate target will be:

I am a breeder. Not just a breeder, but a breeder who has bred. I treasure my children, and regard them as the greatest among many gifts my union with my wife has brought me. I know as well as anyone else that conceiving children can be one of the great joys of having sex.

But I deeply resent the suggestion, the assertion that by taking steps to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, or engaging in intimate acts that could never result in pregnancy that we have somehow degraded our love for one another, or debased the intimate time we spend together. I resent it when someone says that about my wearing a condom or my wife using contraceptives, and I resent it when someone says that about two men loving one another or two women loving one another. However it’s said, it’s an outright assault on the most precious, personal aspect of the relationship between me and my wife.

I didn’t demand my wife prove her fertility before we were wed, nor did she ask the same of me. We became lovers, and then became husband and wife in large measure because of the sexual desire we felt for one another. And I deeply resent the assertion that the way I feel about my wife can only be justified by the possibility of conception.

Well, that’s what the Pope believes; and it’s therefore what Kathryn-Jean Lopez believes should be reflected in American social policy. I’m glad more and more heterosexuals are waking up to the theocon agenda.

Charles Krauthammer writes today:

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

What’s missing from this assessment? No mention of weapons of mass destruction. Is this central argument made by the president and by the secretary of state at the U.N. now to be airbrushed from history? Is this a mere oversight on Charles’ part? Or is he now revealing that he never believed the WMD rationale in the first place? If so, a little clarification might be in order. For a leading neocon to say he never believed the WMD casus belli before the war would be news, wouldn’t it? And it would raise the question of whether others within the administration never believed it as well. Which raises the question of whether they were knowingly lying to us. Which seems to me to be a big deal.

[Update: here’s president Bush’s assessment of why we invaded Iraq from last summer:

"The main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."]

Move over, Borat. Here’s more Second World fun! Check out the garden dance-moves:

From Scott Horton’s speech yesterday in Berlin, Germany:

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to read your newspaper today very carefully. In it you will find another ‚Äì now the third ‚Äì report (PDF) prepared by faculty and students at Seton Hall Law School examining the Combat Status Review Tribunal, a board composed to confirm the status of detainees in Guantanamo. Based on its determinations, detainees may be held for indefinite periods ‚Äì potentially forever. Yet, as this study reveals, most proceedings occupy only a few hours, involve no witnesses and generally little meaningful evidence of any sort. The detainees are not confronted with the accusations or evidence against them, given an opportunity to ask questions or conduct a case. Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka’s Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?

I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation’s counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.

In the end justice is a glorious thing and the evasion of justice is shameful. But we must remember, as both Robert H. Jackson and Hannah Arendt have taught us, that this process is not simply about justice. It is also about the appearance of justice. Failing that, we run a severe risk. The penal colony may now be an island. But soon it may become the world.

A revealing Corner post from theocon Kathryn-Jean Lopez:

Does Anyone Really Disagree with This?

A Bush administration HHS nominee is getting grief for his involvement with a pregnancy center that believes:

"that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness."

Passing out contraception without any deeper context or conversation is degrading and disrespectful ‚Äî to men and women. Tell me I’m crazy.

She’s crazy. We’re not talking about condoms for kids here. We’re talking about condoms for adults. We know she’s nuts because she insisted only a couple of weeks’ back that Rick Santorum – as an empirical prediction – would win in Pennsylvania. She is delusional, but she is also a fanatic. Notice how she cannot even understand how anyone could really disagree with her about the "evil" of contraception. In her cocoon, this may be true. The theocon right absolutely believes that contraception is just as immoral as gay sex. If they could ban it, discourage it, prevent its availability, they would. And with the appointment of Eric Keroack at HHS, we have new evidence they are.

(For a full treatment of the theoconservative position on abortion, contraception, heterosexual sex and end-of-life issues, check out Chapter Three of my book. It includes a careful dissection of Rick Santorum’s book, and his profound hostility to the concept of American freedom. And it contains my favorite index item in the book: "clitoris: purpose of." Like I’d know.)

Check out this exit poll analysis of the first anti-gay-union amendment to fail. It’s from Arizona. You find some obvious data that bear out what we already know. Women are marginally more in favor of gay unions than men – but it’s not that big a gender gap. Men split 50-50. Women broke 53 – 47 against a constitutional ban. The under-30s voted against the amendment by a whopping 61 to 39 percent. I expect in a decade or so that many of these amendments will be repealed by similar margins. Education is a key indicator of being anti-gay or not. Those with dropped out of high school favored the amendment by a huge 65 to 35 percent. Those who graduated college opposed it by a narrow margin. Post-grads were overwhelmingly opposed.

The only ethnic group to favor the amendment by a large margin was black, by 61 – 39 percent. Karl Rove’s attempt to peel off a few black votes by gay-bashing was not stupid. It was based on the data. African-Americans are easily the ethnic group most hostile toward gay rights. The reasons may have more to do with education and class than race. But black homophobia exists – as any inner-city resident knows only too well. Sadly for Rove, prejudice alone can’t get blacks to change their partisan alignment. Next time, Rove might want to try and exploit other fears and prejudices to win votes. This one is strong – just not strong enough.

Remember when Republicans actually supported individual liberty? Here’s Mr Schwarzenegger, one of the few real conservatives left, extolling Milton Friedman. As a fellow immigrant who came to love America because of its promise of freedom, I second every word. And I long for the day when the GOP can once again become the party of individual freedom, rather than collective fear, debt, and intolerance:

(Hat tip: Ryan.)