Of course I don't question Al Qaeda's will to torture its enemies, but I have a hard time believing anything the Pentagon claims to have found in these "safe houses" they raid. We've already been exposed to instances of, at best, mistaken intelligence -- if not deliberate propaganda -- as a result of these raids in the past. The credibility of the occupation is so damaged that I still don't understand why pundits on both sides continue to take these announcement seriously.

Which brings us to my point. Could it be that the mere fact that they've managed to make Glenn Greenwald discuss possible torture by Al Qaeda on his blog constitutes a rhetorical victory for Bush's supporters? Sure, Al Qaeda surely does engage in torture. As Glenn pointed out, this is a known fact. But what if the evidence presented here for it, like the evidence they presented of supposed Iranian involvement in attacks on US soldiers, turns out to be totally bogus, something ginned up for the purpose of changing the debate? Haven't we just taken the bait here?

Prunes,

Thanks for the link. It really is interesting that Al Qaeda believes its members need elaborate diagrams to explain how to use a drill on someone's hand, isn't it? Perhaps they were worried the recruit wielding the drill would hold the wrong end.

... usually has a morsel of truth in it. I think it may well be that the narrative Glenn is describing here is gaining traction because, at it's core, is a pretty obvious nugget of truth. Bush is NOT by any definition of the word, truly "conservative". He is an authoritarian, right-wing radical, something not far from, yet still distinct from, traditional American conservativism. He won't be mistaken for someone like Eisenhower, for example.

Now, this is not to say that there is anything in the least bit genuine or honest about this so-called rebellion the republicans are staging. Glenn has rightly pointed out that these very people, now so eager to pose as "mavericks" today, are the same movement conservatives who happily embraced all things Bush and accused his critics as nothing short of treason for 6 full years until such a position became altogether untenable. The record, as Glenn has shown, is clear that they are all willfully linked to Bush ideologically, despite their recent revisionist spasms. They are all in the same boat.

Glenn's error, one of some significance, is mistaking that boat for the Good Ship Conservativism. The point here is that NEITHER Bush NOR these so-called rebels are conservative at all. They are ALL authoritarian radicals who share a vision of "conservatism" that bears no resemblance to American traditions or ideas. Bush's blatant antics have simply exposed them all for the world to see.

This faux-rebellion the conservatives are staging is intended to conceal this fact. They don't want you to know that conservativism in America has died at the hands of a new, Americanized form of fascism. So they hide themselves behind a truth to which we can all agree. Bush is NOT in any way conservative. But neither are they.

Glenn,

In the context of the previous posts you reference here, which I have read and enjoyed, I see your point. I just wish you'd said more about that important point here. I wouldn't want to see that point get lost in a distracting debate about who among them is a "true" conservative because, as we both seem to agree, none of them are.

"A huge number of Americans self-identify as conservatives, more than self-identify as liberals. Allowing Bush an his ilk to call themselves “Conservative” or to argue over whether they are conservatives is a political mistake --- because they are not…

Excellent. This is all I was I getting at earlier. They shouldn't be allowed to carry a the banner of a traditional American movement like conservatism because they are anything but.

The reason they call themselves "conservatives" is because they knew from the start that they needed a disguise (or perhaps a better metaphor would be that they are a political parasite that needed a host). Their true nature is too repugnant, their ideas too radical to stand on their own merits in the mainstream. So it was to their advantage to usurp the mantle of an existing, well-established movement. In the process they have managed to confuse the very meaning of the word itself, drawing in traditional, middle-America conservatives who, absent their deceptions, would never have gone in for some of the things they now find themselves supporting. We should take every single opportunity to make that fact plain. We do them a favor when we allow them to continue to call themselves "conservatives".

As must distaste as I've always had to real conservatives, these new guys actually make me miss them.

"What?"

Please excuse my sloppy typing and careless proofreading. I meant to say, "As MUCH distaste as I have FOR real conservatives, these new guys [Bushiite "conservatives"] actually make me miss them." That is to say, they make Nixon look all fuzzy and cuddly by comparison.

I really recommend reading (at least) the first 11 pages of the court's decision, where the court sets forth in very stark and clear terms exactly what we have done to al-Marri.

Glenn,

I was wondering if you could post the link to the text of that decision. Thanks.

Please disregard my last post. I don't know how I missed it.