"... I'm not going to defend Cheney on torture... even though it's clear you paint over the fact that it's a much more complicated issue than your bias allows for... still, it's misleading to dump on him without raising the likelihood that Cheney's support for EIT is more rhetorical than literal... you assume, conveniently, that Cheney is a blood thirsty Inquisitor, whereas the reality is he no doubt believes there is value in the projection of strength, even if at times that strength presents itself in unsavory, even somewhat irrational terms... it's disingenuous on your part not to wonder if that is indeed Cheney's real motive here... but of course it serves your political bias better to act as if he's evil incarnate..."
"... furthermore, Tom, what language do you suggest be used to define interrogation techniques that fall into a grey zone? Are you suggesting there isn't or shouldn't be a grey area? Because that would be pretty naive - you can't entertain the thought that maybe Cheney's engorged rhetoric is a push back against such naive political correctness? Our military employs something of a euphemism when it comes to 'grey areas' - special operations. You have a problem with that as well? SOCOM pushes the boundaries between right and wrong, between appropriate and inappropriate, because that's the nature of war. Are you saying that those charged with interrogating terrorists should not be afforded similar license? It's clear to me Cheney's bluster is not about wanting to waterboard every SOB who passes through Gitmo - it's simply push back against the sentimental logic of the left... a logic which, as seen in the proposed trial of KSM, sounds pleasant in theory but proves a disaster in practice..."
