MarkGanzersInsanityBlog: 580 Credit Where Credit Is Due By: John Caruso

Friday, May 13, 2011

580 Credit Where Credit Is Due By: John Caruso

I haven't actually checked the liberal blogs today but I'm sure they're filled with praise for George W. Bush, since the killing of bin Laden clearly vindicates his strategy of continuing the war in Afghanistan and expanding it to Pakistan.

ADDING: Here's Alberto Gonzales with the non-ironic version:

I congratulate President Obama and his team for this significant accomplishment. I also congratulate President Bush who carried the War on Terror to our enemies and adopted the legal framework for that effort that continues today.

Via ThinkProgress, who I thank for illustrating my point.

— John Caruso

Posted at 01:19 PM | Comments (16)

Credit Where Credit's Due

Lots of Americans were mad it took ten years for the government to kill bin Laden, but I think it was worth being extra careful to make sure no one else got hurt.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at 10:18 AM | Comments (17)

Joke

Given that the U.S. did about exactly what bin Laden wanted every day for the past ten years, yesterday must have come as a surprise.

P.S. Will Shetterly says: "I suspect on the list of things he wanted was dying as a martyr." I don't know, maybe. He definitely wanted to be thought of as the kind of guy who wanted to die a martyr, but hiding out for years in a walled mansion suggests you also have a keen interest in staying alive.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at 06:10 AM | Comments (8)

April 30, 2011

Death Imitates Art

P.S. Barack Obama's favorite movie actually is The Godfather.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at 10:19 PM | Comments (23)

April 27, 2011

Spade Actually Heart, Says Keller

By: John Caruso

Here's New York Times editor Bill Keller's latest rationalization for why torture isn't torture when the U.S. does it:

Q. The article today says the documents "are largely silent about the use of the harsh interrogation tactics at Guantánamo." Why does The New York Times continue to refuse to call torture by its name? — Aaron Dome, Chicago
A. Some of the interrogation methods may fit a legal or common-sense definition of torture. Others may not. To refer to the whole range of practices as "torture" would be simply polemical. — Bill Keller

That bit about "some of the interrogation methods" is a new one; apparently the Times is incapable of mentioning "torture" unless it occurs in perfect isolation from any other tactic? So as long as U.S. interrogators ask one polite question, they can pull out the thumbscrews the rest of the time? Man, all these rules!

Fortunately the rules are much simpler and the word is no longer "simply polemical" when it's being used tocharacterize the actions of designated enemies:

The BBC report adds to testimony from Libyan opponents of the Qaddafi government as well as refugees fleeing the country that Libyan security forces have routinely tortured those in their custody.

And it's also perfectly acceptable when describing the excruciating pain of being forced to sip wine for 30 minutes as your friends carry out over-elaborate food presentation, as in a recent Diner's Journal article titled "Our Friends Torture Us with Fancy Plating" (I'm sure we can all sympathize). Though in fairness, "Our Friends Inflict Harsh Tactics On Us with Fancy Plating" really doesn't scan that well.

I realize some people may criticize Keller and the Times for this, but I for one appreciate them providing us with such a simple and reliable way of determining that they're still boot-licking stenographers of power, since the day I see a Times article that actually calls recent U.S. actions "torture" is the day I'll have to consider subjecting myself to the pain of reading their articles in full (though I'm guessing my bigger concern will be how to dodge all the flying pigs).