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.

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.

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.