Finally, a reasonable argument in favor of torture

It’s been maddening over the last few years listening to the “debate” over torture. On the one side you have your basic horde of patchouli-soaked dirty fucking hippie liberals wringing their hands and screeching over anything that damages a terrorist’s self-esteem, while on the other side you have a well-dressed cadre of chicken-hawks who think that Jack Bauer is a real person.

Seriously, can I get a bipartisan “amen”?

The closest we’ve ever gotten to a conservative breaking ranks on the issue is John McCain, who has paid a lot of lip-service to how torture is bad. His deeply held convictions haven’t exactly inspired to vote against torture, but this is America and it’s what you say that matters.

Now, though, we have a librul making the case for getting all medieval on somebody’s ass. Minstrel Boy has the rationale. If you would, hop over to the Group News Blog and read all about it.

2 replies »

  1. I followed the link to Group News Blog. But I can’t figure out what he’s getting at:

    . . . why not take Nancy Pelosi, and anyone from the CIA who disputes her account of the what happened

    Why is he placing Nancy Pelosi in the same category with those who dispute her? Wouldn’t the latter be in the same category as those in favor of torture who he cites? He lost me.

  2. He’s saying that some good old fashioned Inquisition style torturing would be capable of determining who’s telling the truth in the CIA v. Pelosi.

    I enjoyed his following the tortured logic to its conclusion. With it we might even be able to get some people to admit to global warming.

    Hard not to picture the “She’s a witch” scene from the “Holy Grail”, but that’s ok…seems to fit America these days anyhow.