The Malpractice Of Conservative Moral Authority

When conservatives write a book, no matter the subject, rest assured that they are going to attempt to re-write clearly defined segments of American history ( even some of it’s most recent aspects ) in order to prove their point – flaccid though it may be.

Case in point , Mark Theissen attempts to bully Chritiane Amanpour while denying that torture ever existed but then ultimately claiming that it saved American lives.



The “which attack would you have preferred succeeded” meme has been used multiple times by conservatives as a misdirection tool. It’s a clear signifier that conservatives are ultimately willing to use the spectre of torture to validate their own misgivings and moral failures.

It’s not a question that combating terrorism is difficult, but no one party can claim that they hold sway as the dominant force of success. After all, Theissen’s obtuse assurance that torture ( waterboarding, “advanced interrogation” ) offered actionable intel to prevent attacks has been proven false time and again.

In essence, Mark Theissen's thesis in the book is nothing more than an epic poem designed to warm the hearts of torture apologists within the conservative movement.

I am curious, thought, how Theissen would respond to recent disclosures that prisoners at Guantanamo were murdered.