A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
So many conservative "prime timers" and radio prattle-heads love to talk about "torture" and how they are so certain that it works. Have they ever talked to an actualy interrogator to see what they thought? No.
John Stewart has.
Matthew Alexander (not his real name) is a fourteen year Air Force vet who served as an interrogator in Iraq, and he's written a book called How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. Last night, Alexander made an appearance on The Daily Show, where he made a powerful case for the superior efficacy of not torturing people during interrogations.
Apparently, that greasy paint-load that is Karl Rove is upset with the NewYork Times about a story they did about a CIA agent that questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - the alleged September 11th mastermind.
They pure comedy that rests within this righteous indignation is the fact that Rove is seated in the middle of the Valerie Plame Affair. Sure, there are other ancillary characters in the story that are just as much to blame ( ie - Richard Armitage, Robert Novak, "Scooter Libby", and more than likely Dick Cheney ).
Nevermind that the agent mentioned by The Times was never 'udnercover' and had been mentioned in other articles and books. The Times explained that this was a 'judgement call' and provided 'completeness' to the story.
This is all just more standard fodder for the conservative movement. George W. Bush doesn't like the Times so - in turn - all his little droogies have to hate the Times as well. It's all just a game of 'follow-the-leader' on a mass scale.
Here's Rove's discussion on the topic with that self-described 'humble-correspondant' himself - Bill O'Reilly:
