Douthat[] ... feeds into the idea that those who claim always to have opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and all of the crimes they entailed are deluding themselves. This idea resonates with the image apologists cultivate of themselves as the only people with the guts to acknowledge the morally ambiguous territory they inhabit. The rest of us, in their view, are simply comforting ourselves with a revisionist history of our unflagging defense of “human rights,” willfully forgetting the much realer and truer fear we felt in the aftermath of September 11th. These apologists need to be reminded of the actual history of protest against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it is not an imaginary history, written in self-congratulatory hindsight.

Good on you.

Here's one problem with revisionism: it's typically orchestrated by those who stand to benefit from it. The other problem, of course, is implicit--truth.

As Scott Horton points out:

Vanity Fair’s David Rose takes a look at the administration’s case for torture, and specifically its claims that torture averted attacks or at least produced actionable intelligence of some sort. He walks us through all the claims, one by one, and finds that they are all contradicted by the facts. Some of the sources did produce useful intelligence, but in no case was the application of torture the reason why, nor did it even contribute to the result.

In the final lines of his article, he has this exchange with FBI director Robert Mueller:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

Mueller is “reluctant to answer” because he knows that Cheney and other administration spokespersons have repeatedly made that claim. And he knows that it is a lie which has been advanced for a specific reason: to cloak their criminal conduct.

So you'd have voted for this man to be indicted regardless of what evidence was presented? And you want to critique Glenn's rationality?

I have to second PDA (and Jebbie) on this. The whole point is to restore the primacy of law. I don't like Rove either but I'm not interested in crucifying him because I don't like him.

But if justice ran off the rails just this once against someone like Rove, rather than a the thousand of poor people without access to decent lawyering that were unjustly incarcerated in the last month or two, I would say that one has to choose one's battles.

I get this but I think it's a false choice. You know as well as me that our judicial problems, at the Federal, state and local levels are immense (and I'm thinking here of drug laws, to name but one, and the attendant prison-industrial complex we [Americans] have allowed to be created). Prosecuting Rove in the absence of actual evidence won't resolve this.

Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to your position.

In fact, the only poster to make principled stands around here was walter_map, who made his last principled stand against several radical feminists who wanted to justify the inhuman court-ordered blinding of a criminal by pouring acid into his eyes.

When was this? Here at Salon or Greenwald's blog?

I don't recall anything of the sort and I sure don't recall anyone defending that acid-in-the-eyes decision.

Yes, that would be awful. I'd find the strength to solider on somehow.

Oh, come on. Don't be obtuse for its own sake.

Well, I had in mind Glenn Greenwald's blog. The other parts of Salon I only read from time to time.

omooex: I would say that the editorial statement from CAP is actually a good thing, inadvertantly outing them as the actual force behind TP, and making it clear that TP is not, and never has been, an independent media voice.

Which makes me wonder why Yglesias agreed to blog on the site. And wasn't Ackerman there before him?

This is why, I suppose, we have expressions like Caveat Emptor ("let the emperor have his precious caviar").

to cite an example of Steve Hatchett's predictive abilities: Celebrate Obamas victory while you can. I, on the other hand, will be dancing at the McCain/Palin inaugral on January 20th. See you there! Ha!Haaa!!!

and analytic abilities:

There is only one ... person who is not complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration; that person is Glenn Greenwald.

Say, Steve, don't I know you from the Sorbonne? I believe you were studying remedial rhetoric (and in French!).

statement: The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator).

Child sacrifice: a whole-hearted refusal to support healthcare reform, provide funding for daycare, consistently refuse to raise food stamp benefits;

sexual immorality: there are surely no "religious" consumers of internet pornography, are there? Aren't we a deeply religious, "center-right" country?

pantheism: here, I have to give it to this guy. He and his revere neither the creation nor, by extension, the creator.

So all in all, he's able to muster roughly a 0% accuracy rating. Other than that, hey, good job!

how was the editing?