Brian Leiter posts Gerard Dworkin's "Is the Rack Torture?" It's a fine bit of satire, and a useful corrective to the pathological agnosticism about waterboarding that continues to be espoused by even "grown up" conservatives. (Strangely, the more they know, the less they know it.)
The WaPo profiles the soldiers of Fort Hunt -- the men charged with interrogating Nazi POWs.
Interesting in its own right for the soldiers' recounting of their interrogation techniques (which included playing chess and buying the prisoner a steak dinner), the article also provides a clear explanation of why this administration has had to resort to...other measures. For, as WWII veteran George Frenkel notes, their strategy involved engaging prisoners in a "battle of the wits."
Matt Yglesias notes a conspicuous case of fact-based reporting:
[T]he AFP tries a revolutionary experiment in writing their story in such a way as to make readers better informed about the issue at hand rather than more familiar with the president's propaganda. Here's the lede:
US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Oh, my! Imagine the world we might live in if this were the standard way to open a newspaper story about the president making a false or misleading claim.
Unfortunately, imagining appears to be what we're stuck with.
Anyway, commenter Dr. Wu suggests a salutary modification:
US President and lying sack of shit George W. Bush
charged Monday that...
I like my representative Henry Waxman's response to the president's contention that Justice will not be allowed to prosecute congressional contempt citations in "executive privilege" cases: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."
U.S. attorneys are but "emanations of a president's will," after all...
Kevin Drum has this cute quotation of General Tony Peak about President Bush:
America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.
Some of the commenters (for various reasons) want to insist that Bush is not "stupid" but just "willfully ignorant" (or the like). I don't get the distinction. Persisting in willful ignorance is but one form of stupidity.
Honestly, now, can we get over it? If we're going to make mention of the fact that President Bush shaved a syllable off the prefered phrase 'Democrat*ic* Party' as a means of tweaking his opponents, let's please do it only in the context of pointing out that this pathetic gambit just shows him to be the impotent yap that he is.