Torture Memos

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

That's great. But the question isn't, "Is waterboarding torture?" The question was, "Why do so many people believe waterboarding isn't torture?" And the reason is as stated: by far the most prominent people calling it torture are deemed, fairly or unfairly, to be inveterate liars.

More prominent than Barack Obama?

Nor is it only liberals or Democrats that have said it:

John McCain
Richard Armitage
Tom Ridge
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul

So not only are waterboard defenders ignoring the left they reflexively disagree with, but also those on the right that they just cover their ears and ignore.

I haven't read the book, but my understanding is that it claims that certain specific liberals are unhinged, not that the entire corpus of the American left is insane. It backs that argument with examples. Surely you agree that some people on the left are unhinged?

Here's Amazon's editorial review:

From Publishers Weekly
The spewing of vitriol, epithets and wild conspiracy theories suggest a collective nervous breakdown among liberals, according to conservative commentator Malkin who, in her latest book, makes no distinction between moderate and extreme liberals; everyone left of right is a nut who suffers from PEST-Post Election Selection Trauma. This syndrome, she explains, is democratic (small d), affecting stuffed-donkey clutching college students and seasoned congressmen and journalists whose overweening diatribes and hand-wringing Malkin has seized to illustrate an emotionally charged and irrational hatred of everything conservative. Malkin scoured blogs, speeches, media commentaries and even transcripts from Oprah for material, though she misses the boat in a number of instances, most notably in her obliviousness to sarcasm and irony, and she overextends her analytical prowess by offering shallow, shoddy critiques of theater, literature and modern art. Malkin uses extremist bloggers and airheaded celebrities as exemplars of the left, cherry picking the most egregiously tasteless examples of ill-conceived commentary or inflammatory behavior to bolster her case that liberals, as a whole, have gone off their rockers. Right-wingers looking for affirmation will enjoy.

So someone who has read it is saying she does exactly that, uses the most extreme liberals to tar the entire Left. Wouldn't you say that is much more like Ann Coulter than anything Krugman has written?

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by Ox

That's great. But the question isn't, "Is waterboarding torture?" The question was, "Why do so many people believe waterboarding isn't torture?" And the reason is as stated: by far the most prominent people calling it torture are deemed, fairly or unfairly, to be inveterate liars.

I don't think the main reason people believe waterboarding isn't torture is because of their opinion of Olbermann/Limbaugh or other media talking heads. It mostly comes down to a few different types of people, in my view:

1. Those who don't know enough about the procedure and/or think the term 'waterboarding' sounds harmless.

2. Those who feel defensive when it becomes apparent that the United States has performed this procedure on captives, and thus simply do not consider it the same thing as has been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisition.

3. Those who participate in the 'football team' mentality and will believe what their 'team' believes and berate the opinion of those on the other 'team.'

Of these three, the latter seems to me to be the smallest percentage. Most people are just ill informed. As we get more and more testimonials, including from people like Hitchins and Muller who were once in support of the practice, expressing how bad it really is, I believe you'll see a growing number of people coming over to the realization that this technique is, and always has been, torture. I understand the desire to assuage a guilty conscience in the face of these accusations and the evidence, but that doesn't change the definition of the procedure.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

So not only are waterboard defenders ignoring the left they reflexively disagree with, but also those on the right that they just cover their ears and ignore.

True.

So someone who has read it is saying she does exactly that, uses the most extreme liberals to tar the entire Left. Wouldn't you say that is much more like Ann Coulter than anything Krugman has written?

I'll say it's much closer to Ann Coulter than I thought. Perhaps I'll consider picking it up to see for myself. I don't agree there's much gap between Coulter and Krugman, but Malkin is not looking dramatically better than them.

EDIT: One question, though: the President says that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, and all Democrats routinely accuse the GOP of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans. How is this different from what Malkin does? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious. I imagine it's at least as insulting to me to be told I'm part of the Glenn Beck crowd as it is for me to accuse you of being with DailyKos.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

I'll say it's much closer to Ann Coulter than I thought. Perhaps I'll consider picking it up to see for myself. I don't agree there's much gap between Coulter and Krugman, but Malkin is not looking dramatically better than them.

Wow. Really? Not much gap?

Go ahead, pick your topic and find me any quote from Krugman on the same topic that is in any way similar.

I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"

These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.

There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats.

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'

I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

EDIT: One question, though: the President says that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, and all Democrats routinely accuse the GOP of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans. How is this different from what Malkin does? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious. I imagine it's at least as insulting to me to be told I'm part of the Glenn Beck crowd as it is for me to accuse you of being with DailyKos.

It's not unfair to say that about either side. It helps to actually have evidence, though, to back up the accusation. In my view the current GOP's actions are much closer to what Limbaugh dictates than Obama and the Democrats are to what DailyKos dictates. This is supported by the numerous high-profile Republicans like Michael Steele that have walked back their anti-Limbaugh statements or completely apologized for them. As someone pointed out before, when was the last time an executive or congressional Democrat apologized to Kos? Or any other high profile liberal? As I recall, the House actually passed a resolution condemning MoveOn for their "General Betrayus" ad. When was the last time they did that for Rush Limbaugh or any prominent person or group on the right?

Also, I wouldn't be insulted if you accused me of being with DailyKos. I subscribe to the site, have read it since before the 2004 elections, have posted diaries there, and have met Kos himself.

[alienmastermind]

I just want to state for the record that the kinds of things Ann Coulter says are usually think-tank factoids bent to her own intentions. Basically the 'shock-jock' kind of rhetoric that the above example shows.

But when you have a guy you're supposed to respect and listen to as a leader of the Republican Party, like Newt Gingrich, saying things like the next nominee for the Supreme Court is 'stupid and a bigot' based upon a sentence taken FAR out of context (knowingly, I might add), you get the sense that these kinds of mendacities are gonna be par for the course.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

It's not unfair to say that about either side. It helps to actually have evidence, though, to back up the accusation.

Wait. If it's not unfair, why does Malkin saying it put her in the same category as Coulter?

I think I've fundamentally misunderstood why people dislike Limbaugh and Coulter. I thought it was because they made unfair and insulting aspersions on their political opponents, often taking the most extreme examples of the other side and ascribing the same views to everyone. Clearly, I misunderstood the objection.

EDIT: I'm sorry for the constant edits, but I don't think the criticism of the MoveOn "General Betrayus" ad is really comparable to Steele's criticism of Limbaugh. Obama and Kerry have distanced themselves from MoveOn.org, but neither used terminology like "ugly" to describe them in toto. There was specific criticism of a specific instance in which MoveOn stepped over the line, not a wholesale trashing. And all prominent Democrats initially refused to criticize MoveOn directly, bowing only when overwhelming public pressure forced them to. When the Senate voted to condemn "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus" 11 days later, all of the Democratic Presidential candidates opposed it (although they were willing to criticize MoveOn.org obliquely by voting for a different resolution). I'm not sure you really want to use that as a "Profile in Courage."

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

Wait. If it's not unfair, why does Malkin saying it put her in the same category as Coulter?

I never said THAT was why Malkin is in the same category as Coulter. The initial comparison was about "distorting reality to partisan ends," Not "accus[ing] the GOP [or Democrats] of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans."

I think I've fundamentally misunderstood why people dislike Limbaugh and Coulter. I thought it was because they made unfair and insulting aspersions on their political opponents, often taking the most extreme examples of the other side and ascribing the same views to everyone. Clearly, I misunderstood the objection.

It's because they do all that, and they do it in the most offensive, extreme way possible. Like in all those quotes I posted about Coulter, and many more. Yes, people on the left distort, too, but the personalities Ravenlock brought up (O'Reilly, and Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin, and Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Quinn & Rose, and Michael Savage, and this guy Mancow) do it to a much greater degree and with much more venom than those on your list (James Carville, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman, Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Kos, Maureen Dowd, David Brock, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Atrios).

You clearly disagree, though, and consider those two groups to be equals.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

I never said THAT was why Malkin is in the same category as Coulter. The initial comparison was about "distorting reality to partisan ends," Not "accus[ing] the GOP [or Democrats] of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans."

Oh. Sorry. So Coulter = Malkin = Krugman = Pelosi = Bush, right? All of them have been credibly accused of distorting reality to partisan ends.

You clearly disagree, though, and consider those two groups to be equals.

Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

Oh. Sorry. So Coulter = Malkin = Krugman = Pelosi = Bush, right? All of them have been credibly accused of distorting reality to partisan ends.

To varying degrees and frequency, yes. Personally, based on what I've seen and read, I believe Coulter, Malkin, and Bush have done so more than Pelosi, and Krugman less than any of the others. You clearly disagree.

Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

Wow. All of them? Josh Marshall is more venomous and prone to spouting falsity than Glenn Beck? Paul Begala is worse than Rush Limbaugh?

[BlackPete]

Originally Posted by Ox

Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

That's quite a cognitive disconnect, but one that's understandable because otherwise it wouldn't be complimentary for your 'team'.

I think democrats are sleazy, but republicans might as well be aliens from all the craziness they spout.

For example, I can't think of any leftist troll that's on the same scale as Ann Coulter's more graphic abortion remarks.

[alienmastermind]

I think citing here would be a good compromise.

Rush has said: "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --on the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is white

Begala has said: "Again and again, I've seen Bush turn a blind eye as his henchmen have leveled zealous attacks against his political enemies - assaults which the president himself has sometimes directly encouraged." -- If true, then, it's mean-spirited, but not just ginning up a response.

Coulter has said: "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Krugman: " . . . it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics."

Okay...to be fair, I don't have Lexis-Nexus at work, just Google, and came up with these right away. Let's just get a list going, guys.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by BlackPete

For example, I can't think of any leftist troll that's on the same scale as Ann Coulter's more graphic abortion remarks.

I can, but they're running small-time blogs or posting comments, not being broadcast on national tv or radio.

[BlackPete]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

I can, but they're running small-time blogs or posting comments, not being broadcast on national tv or radio.

Well... allow me to nuance it then: Any leftist troll that anyone has actually heard of.

[BlackPete]

Originally Posted by alienmastermind

I think citing here would be a good compromise.

Rush is wayyyyy too easy. This is what I turned up after a 15 second Google:

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

-Rush Limbaugh

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

-Rush Limbaugh, to a black caller.

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

-Rush Limbaugh

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

-Rush Limbaugh

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

-Rush Limbaugh

"[Blacks] are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

-Rush Limbaugh

"[Colin Powell] is just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama," Limbaugh responded. "It was purely and solely based on race."

-Rush Limbaugh

I don't think I could have the stomach to google Ann either (ew, even that came out wrong), so I'll pass.

[Doogie2K]

I love that we've had exactly one post on the actual subject of the thread in amongst almost two pages of partisan bickering. No one has any thoughts on the fact that photos are being withheld, not necessarily to cover asses, but because they're straight-up too graphic to show?

[Ox]

How about official John Edwards campaign blogger Amanda Marcotte? She said this:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Which, apart from being disrespectful and a little icky (neither of which are stoning offenses), does clearly seem to indicate she believes Catholic = misogynist. Is that graphic enough to qualify?

[Ink Asylum]

She was "official John Edwards campaign blogger" for all of two weeks before being let go for comments like that. Otherwise she's just someone running their own blog. Is she somehow supposed to be comparable to Ann Coulter, who gets invited again and again onto national news programs as a supposedly serious political commenter? Or Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, nationally syndicated and wildly successful radio hosts? Or O'Reilly and Beck, who host prime time network shows?

I fully recognize there are foul and vicious voices on the left. Hell, if you want to read something really disrespectful and icky from the left check out The Rude Pundit. They are just not the dominant voices like so many are on the right.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

She was "official John Edwards campaign blogger" for all of two weeks before being let go for comments like that. Otherwise she's just someone running their own blog. Is she somehow supposed to be comparable to Ann Coulter, who gets invited again and again onto national news programs as a supposedly serious political commenter?

And who was fired immediately after making the first of her wildly outrageous comments in National Review? I'm not sure how the GOP is supposed to prevent CNN from interviewing her.

I fully recognize there are foul and vicious voices on the left. Hell, if you want to read something really disrespectful and icky from the left check out The Rude Pundit. They are just not the dominant voices like so many are on the right.

I think the problem here is that you don't have as much familiarity with the voices on the right. Beck and Coulter are nowhere near as prominent within the movement as they are to outsiders. This is kind of understandable: Ramesh Ponnuru and Glenn Reynolds are nowhere near as offensive, and so they don't get much airtime on programs like "When Rightwingers Attack." I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by Ox

I think the problem here is that you don't have as much familiarity with the voices on the right. Beck and Coulter are nowhere near as prominent within the movement as they are to outsiders. This is kind of understandable: Ramesh Ponnuru and Glenn Reynolds are nowhere near as offensive, and so they don't get much airtime on programs like "When Rightwingers Attack." I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

I have plenty of familiarity with voices on the right. It's pointless to bring them up in this conversation, though, if they're just writing snarky blog posts and not in the national spotlight or holding political power. I never dismissed the entire right movement as bereft of intelligent, cogent, and respectful voices, just the most influential and politically powerful among them.

So if Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly aren't prominent within the movement who's watching/listening to/reading them? Democrats?