You and I can still have a meaningful dialogue, however.

I shouldn't be so dismissive of your Platonism. My situational ethics disturbs people as well. It is based on Agape. It can be misunderstood and perverted by man. Anything conceived of by man can be misunderstood and perverted by man.

Lets take a step back and consider what was probably going through the heads of Pelosi and other "enablers". For the sake of charity, let us also assume (for argument's sake) that they were disgusted by the proposed interrogation methods but refrained from objecting.

This is what probably went through their heads:

1. "This 'waterboarding' is clearly a violation of the most basic human rights. I should say something..."

2. "Hold on a sec ... If I say something, what is the likely outcome?"

3. "If recent history is anything to go by, any objection on my part will be seized on by the Conservative press as a sign that I'm soft on the War on Terror! I can see the editorials now ... "Pelosi willing to Risk the Lives of your Children to Coddle Terrorists!! Liberal!! FRENCH!!"

4. "Can I trust the American public to see through those lies, and realise that torture is a step to far, and in any event produces dodgy intelligence? Hmmm ... probably not ..."

5. "No objection"

Here's the best case scenario - its not that the Democratic Party leadership secretly supports torture. Rather, it is politically too spineless to stand up to the Adminstration for fear of being painted "FRENCH".

But really, can u blame them? The truth is that the American public probably would have bought the smear campaign hook, line and sinker. A substantial proportion of the American public still believes there was a link between Saddam's Iraqi regime and Al Qaede. There was precious little public support in the mainstream press or the public at large to support Hans Blix and El Baradei's attempts to set the record straight. Everyone, myself included, were prepared to trust the general consensus that those WMDs were out there, in spite of the warnings from the IAEA to tread lightly.

Sure our politicians are spineless. But they are spineless because they know they can't trust us, John Q Public, to behave rationally and in moderation. They realised then what I have only just begun to realise now - that in today's culture of soundbites, attack ads, and lobbyists shamelessly distorting or quoting-out-of-context, there is no room for the politican who tries to act in moderation. Every act, word and deed must be scripted for mass consumption and with a view towards the polls and future elections. There is no room for acting in nuance, because the voting public responds to decisiveness and tough talk, not calibration and introspection.

With all due respect, one would think that the more educated party of a conversation would have the tools to communicate down to an elementary audience. But alas, I suppose not.

You have apparently never raised children.. You can tell a child that the hot stove will burn and hurt them until you go hoarse and they will not listen and will continue to try to touch the stove.

Once they actually touch the stove and burn themselves most children then understand and will not touch the stove again.

Adults are really just large children, they have to touch the stove also to truly understand that to do so causes pain.

There is a Chinese aphorism which goes like this: I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.

My point being that simply telling people something is extremely unlikely to make them truly understand it. Why do you suppose that school children are given homework? It is so they get practical experience in solving the problems without someone standing over their shoulder and telling them exactly what to do.

A passive audience learns almost nothing, it takes actual engagement and two way communication to foster the development of understanding in the student.

The fact that many of my posts are in the form of a question is an attempt to engage others in discovering what I consider to be truths. My simply telling people things is rarely productive, they have to figure them out for themselves.

That which we figure out for ourselves is far better understood and far longer remembered than that which we are simply told.

Quoth Kitt: It's infuriating to watch them ramble all around the periphery of every question, subject, answer.

And yet you continue to utterly refuse to answer my simple question..

What else am I wrong about?

Perhaps now, since you admit to being infuriated by a refusal to directly answer a question, you can understand my irritation at your refusal to answer my question that you yourself precipitated.

I predict you will not reply.

Something physiological happens when I read words like "Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen." Some kind of relief that reaches into my cells. It's beautiful to match words to things, even when the things are so foul.

To name the Bush policy a torture regimen; to name the complicity of the Rockefellers, Harmans, Reyeses, and Pelosis. Maybe human bodies sense that when the words fit the things, when you simply say something is what it is, something medicinal happens, and there's hope again.

Why are there so few word-professionals who take words seriously in the way Glenn Greenwald makes a habit of doing? What's so terrifying about the right word for the given thing in front of us?

With thanks to Mr. Greenwald.

This exchange really amazed me. You have a belief that a certain kind of person understands the issues well. Someone comes along with your complete list of attributes, and refutes you. Rather than question your model, you go looking for the faults and character flaws, because the kind of person you thought would understand why torture needed to be used has told you it shouldn't be.

Then it seems the fault is mine for not being able to grasp what was being offered. I'll admit to being miffed at being dismissed, but you think it was warranted. After rereading the exchange, I suppose the gap between a philosophical point and real life is too broad to narrow. But then one has to remember that Plato was philosopher, not a king.

Jkalos appears to have spent many years in training, and thinking, thinking, studying and even teaching to the torture issue. Why would the flaws be in his opinion and not the one which resulted from much less thought?

OK, let me stipulate that his thinking and argument is flawless. So what? An exercise in logic is not as compelling as human emotion. As I said in the beginning, in the halls of the Ivory Tower, Plato may be a rock star, but here on earth nobody cares. So I would reiterate that I can understand why the leadership did what it did, and accept it as a flawed response to a new situation in the best interests of the country. Condemn them if you wish, but we the hoi-polloi prefer the warmth of the tribe and it's protectors, to cold rationalization.