I think this hits the nail on the head:
Clinton, Clinton, Obama and Schumer. They have all, to a greater or lesser degree, embraced the concept of coercive interrogation (some, even torture — which is unquestionably illegal), and they have all underscored the excruciating complexity of this issue. Somehow, they are fit to lead the Democratic Party but the suitability of Mukasey — who has taken a more measured stance — to be attorney general is in doubt? What am I missing here?
Read the whole thing for background. It puts the lie to the idea that those who we can be sure will vote for these people over any Republican who might be the nominee, are actually taking some kind of principled stand. While I think a responsible debate about what kind of techniques can and should be used in interrogation is necessary, we haven’t had it. I should amend my first statement, this is what really hits the nail on the head:
I dunno. Maybe that the “torture” debate is a political tool, and otherwise unserious?
About Lance
I want to thank everybody who has encouraged me over the past few years to do this. I doubt it will hold but a few people's interest, but that is okay with me. Special thanks go to Peter over at http://www.liberalcapitalist.com.
I value my privacy a great deal, so I will guess you will have to get to know me over time to find out much. I am in the financial services, wealth management, investing or whatever you want to call it business. I have children, my oldest is entering college.
I have no great or imposing academic background, my grades varied from high enough to get invited to an honors program at my university to frustrating enough to cause my father great grief. My major was history, with a minor in ethics. My main interest towards the end was in the history of economic ideas before life took a turn and I ended up never going on to graduate school. However, I have a fair knowledge of history, economics, investing and would probably be considered well read. My tastes are eclectic and I pretty much find the entire world interesting.
I have an enduring interest in how people learn about and analyze the world; my posts here will examine this topic in detail over time. I make no claims to be above the very biases and errors I see in others, in fact it is my belief that we are incapable of escaping them, only moderating their control over us.
I am a member of no political party, but I would broadly consider myself a man of the right. I am inclined to free market economics, limited government and a fairly narrow view of the role of the state. A small L libertarian if you will. However, if you are looking for broad based "the left believes..." or "wingers are so...." types of attacks on liberals, conservatives, neo-cons or whatever enemy you want to slam, look elsewhere.
Lance
I dunno. Maybe that the “torture” debate is a political tool, and otherwise unserious?
When I read that from Reynolds – I felt, as I often feel, that Glenn is mocking the entire anti-torture opinions and advocacy of substantial swaths of the US public and policy elite, which extends across partisan lines. Coming from someone who repeatedly claims he’s against torture – yet repeatedly mocks the entire debate and anyone who attempts to actually act against torture – I find Reynolds’ hypocrisy to be well beyond that of his targets.
But I expect that kind of facile, empty sniping from him. Not from you, though.
I’m not above condemning the vacillation and flip-flopping of the Democratic candidates cited. Chuck Schumer’s is the only one that genuinely approximates the Bush position of bombs-away coercion. Both Hilary and Obama’s idea of exceptional presidential sanction of an explicitly illegal act is substantively different than a President that attempts to legalize the procedure generally, or an Attorney General that endorses that illegality.
I don’t like Hilary and Obama’s idea, either, but it would be a substantial improvement on the current dyanmic.
Except, from what we know Bush has not acted any different than their position. Glenn does mock the debate because it isn’t serious. It exaggerates its frequency, refuses to recognize distinctions, conflates policies and refuses to actually debate exactly what is and is not torture.