He Rode the Short Bus to Yale
Posted on May 8th, 2009 by Clark Stooksbury
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Google 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine Slashdot Mixx Diigo Delicious Reddit Facebook
Glenn Reynolds has found a torture issue he can get behind—the Nancy Pelosi hypocrisy angle: “PELOSI LIED, THE WATERBOARDING ISSUE DIED: CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogations’.” He has gone to that well several times.
Reynolds explains the real reason behind the torture issue. “But at any rate, the torture issue was mostly a political tool designed to cow right-leaning members of the punditocracy by calling them Nazis.”
I’m thinking of several non-Nazi words to describe Glenn Reynolds right now, but I’ll limit myself to the euphemistic term, “special.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
What a hoot! Now I finally understand the torture controversy.
Too. Funny.
Hahaha! I get it, you’re calling him a RETARD! Hahaha! That’s so FUNNY!! Hey, let’s all go watch Carlos Mencia!!
[...] Has anyone seen an excellent round-up of torture apologies or torture defenses by American politicians and pundits since 2004? [hat tip to TAC] [...]
Andrew Sullivan is raving about this post…as he will anytime someone writes something nasty or dumb about his latest perceived arch-enemy.
You can find Sullivan’s insane, moonbat-crazy essay about this post here:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/05/08/he-rode-the-short-bus-to-yale/
The guy just goes on and on and on.
Whoops.. It’s here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/reynolds-on-torture.html
vane, if that’s you’re idea of an ‘essay’, and going ‘on and on’, you must not have gotten very far in school.
pardon me, VUNE.
Well, all it took was time and the incessant drumbeat of the media to make abortion and same-sex marriage acceptable to the public – why not “torture”?
Boiled frogs, anyone?
Sullivan goes on and on about this because it goes to the heart of what it means to be an American in 2009. You can find plenty of examples of egregious behavior in our history as you can in the case of other countries like Britain and France that on the whole of have been citadels of freedom and democracy. We’re supposed to have moved on beyond that just as we’ve moved on beyond Jim Crow. The only reason Reynolds and all the other far right conservatives are minimizing this, rationalising it, dragging in every remote allusion they can from Churchill to Truman, is to try and shift blame or muddy the waters for purely partisan reasons. Does anyone doubt if the shoe was on the other foot they’d be screaming blue murder. It’s an appalling commentary on the state of conservatism and the Republican party today. As for Pelosi, a load of bloggers are already demolishing the claims by the CIA which are being parrotted elsewhere. I don’t think it matters much whether she was informed about it or not. She was informed, not asked over to the White House to consult and give her opinions. And once she was informed she was unable to discuss it with anyone because the information was classified. That Reynolds and co are scurrying around using this little fig leaf to cover up what were the breaking of US and international law not to mention contravening the Geneva and UN conventions on torture is a measure of the straits to which they have been reduced.
Reynolds is a deserved target, but he is far from stupid. He is deeply mendicious, and believes (correctly) that most of his readers are … well, I won’t simply say stupid, but either stupid or, at the very least, credulous and not critical thinkers.
chuck C, no need to be condescending. vune was obviously intimidated by the many 4-syllable words in sullivan’s 3-line paragraph, so it blew up to a full-sized “essay” that went “on and on” in his “mind.”
LarryM says, without apparent irony,: ” believes (correctly) that most of his readers are … well, I won’t simply say stupid, but either stupid or, at the very least, credulous and not critical thinkers.”
Pot….Kettle, anyone?
Jeff S., what is troubling is that you and Vune seem to be regular readers of Sullivan. My guess is that you’re either stalkers or here to drum up traffic to Sullivan’s site.
Ottobvs, whether or not the story against Pelosi is being “demolished” by bloggers, I think it’s clearer than ever that there be a commission of inquiry to get all the answers. If Pelosi aquiesced to the torture program, the American Public has a right to know.
Lastly, I find it disgusting that partisans of either side are using the whole issue as a political game, but especially I am disgusted at conservatives. We are supposed to be better than this and we are supposed to give more than lip service to the principles of Liberty. Even more reason for an independent commission.
Why would anyone read Andrew Sullivan when he can stick a fork in his eye as an alternative way of passing time? I created a term of art associated with pundits who are so inane, I mindlessly ignore them. “To Derbyshire”. Derbyshire is the mother of all cretinous knuckleheads. I see Derbyshire’s byline on NRO and I just just move along without thinking. Because I know reflexively that he’s a total idiot. Sullivan is one of his unfortunate progeny. I recognize that and of course just dismiss him as another Englishman who camouflages his stupidity with an English accent.
Hmm, one could argue that I was wrong in what I said, but stupid or credulous don’t seem to apply.
And it’s curious seeing fans of Reynolds here – one would think that he is almost the antithesis of the kind of conservatism which is advocated in this web site and magazine.
In any event to be clear, it’s not the poinions of Reynolds that I am talking about – but his mode of argumentation in support of those opinions – which is almost a parody of locgical fallacy and poor argumentation. Which leaves two possibilities – he is not very smart, or he holds his audience in some level of contempt. I’m simply voting for the latter, rather than the former.
Look, you can find well supported and logical arguments in support of almost any political position. There certainly is nothing inherently stupid about conservatice – or liberal – arguments. But the kind of mendicious argumentation used by Reynolds should be roundly condemned wherever it is found.
For example, and getting back to the topic of this post, as strong an opponent of torture as I am, I wouldn’t say that every defender of the Bush admionstration on that issue is stupid/credulous or dishonest, nor that every argument in support of the adminstration is illogical and/or dishonest. But the particular posts cited are one or the other – you can argue that Pelosi is a hypocrite, but the assertion that “the torture issue was mostly a political tool designed to cow right-leaning members of the punditocracy by calling them Nazis” is dishonest and illogical. And realy is quite typical of Reynolds brand of “argumentation.”
Andrew Sullivan is still a neocon. His screaming about torture does not change that.
The Sullivan detractors here are taking him on the wrong level. Of course many of his opinions are appalling, he tend to “shoot from the hip,” he can be incredibly unfair to people he disagrees with, and lets emotion get in the way of logic on a regular basis. But he is fun to read, he doesn’t seem to engage in the calculated disengenousness that is so common among pundits, and on some issues – such as torture – he is a passionate advocate of sanity.
[...] reason I don’t have Instapundit here is I can’t figure out the permalink sitation. Clark Stooksbury in the American Conservative has a post up that helps [...]