Your so-called paradox is nothing of the sort. Do you suppose you're the first to suggest that "what some might call 'torture' might, under my oh-so-carefully defined set of circumstances, be quite useful, or, dare I say, even, necessary. We must sacrifice the one for the good of the 1+x, after all". Bullshit. YOU are, quite simply, a torture apologist.

I'll not retill the ground for your benefit.

Try reading the threads here.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/17/douthat/view/?show=all

or here

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/12/09/hutson/index.html

or here

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/05/torture/index.html

For you, simply, two questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

How does your "Torture presents a real moral paradox" differ from Yoo's "it depends"? And how are you NOT a torture apologist?

Funny, Glenn. As to Cohen's charge that you exhibit a profound "tendency to grossly oversimplify for the sake of being provocative."

I've always admired that [tendency] as an ability to cut to the heart of an argument and take it to its logical conclusion. Of course, I've never been on the receiving end in a public forum.

GG - was the fact the Drezner is not "the official" blogger, but merely "a Blogger" the "factual error" you'd refused to correct? Clearly he's made the courageous decision in refusing to engage with someone who'd publish such a scurrilous and egregious "error".

I never knew you were humorless, either.

Thinking about the depraved nature of the Bushies and their apologists will do that for you, I guess.

Hey man, this makea me laugh today -

Here at my Home, the NYC Guest 'chat' and hightail it backs.

Why do the city folk confuse me so? The eyes fill with frights.

Of course, I presume it was the city slickers who were frightened.

I await the arrival of belated Holiday guests today. So, for all, a belated present.

http://www.archive.org

or click sig for linky

A veritable treasure trove of wonders. Whatever your inclinations. Go. Explore. Enjoy.

Glenn, what I was saying about the archive (previous post) goes for you as well. i haven't dug around in there all that much - I mostly peruse the music sections, but I'm sure there's plenty of stuff there you could "use". Or enjoy, inasmuch as a humorless scold such as yourself ever finds time to do that.

Glenn, I happened to see you quoted (on C. Kennedy) in the Chicago Sun-Times (via the 12-26-1/9 issue of The Week), and I didn't immediately place the quote in the context of one of your posts. So, as usual, a couple of questions.

Why don't you routinely let your blog readers know when your work appears elsewhere?

When do you sleep?

And I have an idea for you. Why don't you write a book entitled something along the lines of "How to be inhumanly productive as a media/government/political critic while moonlighting as a humorless scold"? I'm serious, if you've got some secret other than an insatiable appetite for work, you could make some money.

The humorless, scold bit made me laugh when it surfaced today. I don't know what that says about MY sense of humor.

And there are a couple of typos:

an administration that is renown around the world for being competent, "renowned"

boring revelations as the choerographing and approving

...this nitwit at the Politico really believes that he's delineated the 10 most significant stories.

Like, even if you sat him down, force-read him Glenn's post, (via a reading-tube?) and then asked him to explain himself - he still probably wouldn't see a problem.

That's not funny.

I couldn't make it past the first 15-20 comments @ Politico.

You might want to give The Week a try. It's now the only periodical I consume in physical form.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/12/us-georgia-to-s.html

I'll betcha can't make it through the FIRST PAGE of rocky's letters without throwing up. Maybe just a little, in your mouth, but still.

Because I will learn a lot about the historical underpinnings of the Arab/Israeli conflict, the differing perspectives of the "supporters" of both "sides", and maybe even gain some insight into realistic policy proposals to ameliorate the ongoing suffering. All spiced up by the likes of electrospambot popping into shout "Nuke the Jews"!

The Internets are great.

Disclaimer: I may agree w/ the actions of the Israeli gov't even less than I do with my own (U.S.) gov't. Guilty. of. War. Crimes.

If that's snark, I missed it.

If not...

Given that a plausible argument can be made that unwavering, unquestioning support of the Israeli gov't is contrary to U.S. "Nat'l Security" interests - why does such blind support seem to be the official position of the U.S. gov't?

And re: 5 man - I'm a little dense sometimes, what can I say?

"Several" means 5!!

Except, of course, when it means, um, more than 2...

http://define.com/several

3: (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident"

3. Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many; divers; sundry; as, several persons were present when the event took place.

2. Persons oe objects, more than two, but not very many.

Question for you @ your Salon addie. Not "urgent".