New Smacks from Newsmax

Can the right wing sink lower than this?

In its effort to convince Americans to embrace the traditional value of torture, this popular right-wing publication is reduced to saying "hey, it worked when the Viet Cong beat up John McCain!" Oh, how proud Newsmax must be of those clever Viet Cong. They were ahead of their time with the torturing and the beating.

The article is an attempt to refute McCain's oft-repeated position that inhumane techniques are "not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information." In an effort to show that torture actually does get accurate information, Newsmax relates the following tale told by McCain:

"For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards . . . Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope."

McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities."

They've buried the lede! The real story here, apparently, is that John McCain was a war criminal! He committed black crimes! The Viet Cong, by using the valuable tools of torture, finally got this accurate information from him!

Backbone

The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone. But we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

Dick Cheney

I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done.

John Murtha (D - Penn.)

Alito Bit Scared?

I respect the pro-life position. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure where I fall on the spectrum of beliefs about abortion. Keep it legal, I think, but more to avoid the dangerous alternatives.

In any event, we sure hear a lot from the right wing about overturning Roe v. Wade. That is until the issue is put squarely on the table. Now, they've got a statement from Alito that he is vehemently against Roe, but rather than crow about it, right wing folks seem to be explaining it away.

Dahlia Lithwick absolutely nails it.

Might it be that your calls for this big old national bull session over activist judging are as cynical and results-based as the holding in Roe that you so revile? Could it be that the national polls—which indicate robust support for Roe and strong opposition to justices who'd reverse it—have rendered this conversation too dangerous? Or is it the prospect of the national backlash that would follow from actually reversing Roe that has rendered you speechless? Aren't you eager, finally, to defend the GOP platform, which overtly promises that the president will appoint judges who will defend the "sanctity of life" and overturn Roe? Or are your notions of scrupulous judicial purity less compelling in the cold light of political reality?

Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Mayle

Congratulations to two good friends who know how to throw a serious wedding. One for the record books, Mayles. Although he's off in Italy with his new bride for a while, drop by his place and give him your best.

The Fleeting Accountability Moment

Sullivan asks the key questions about our Vice President:

When was the last time he held a press conference? I ask these obvious questions because reasonable and fair people, having read the indictments against his chief of staff, have reasonable and fair questions. Did Cheney direct Libby to out Valerie Wilson's identity? Why did he order an inquiry into her role? Does he condemn the leaking of her identity? Why has he held back important documents from the Senate that would help explain his role in formulating what turned out to be flawed intelligence before the Iraq war? That's just for starters. The issues here are profound ones: they suggest that the vice-president has abused his own power and put the nation's security at risk to pursue a political opponent. Maybe that's not true. Maybe there's an innocent explanation for all of this. So why cannot the vice-president explain? It seems at times as if he does not really regard himself as answerable to the people he represents - that once every four years is enough for him. But having the second most powerful man in the country refuse to be accountable for his actions is dangerous for democracy. He is not above this process. You and I pay his salary. It's time for the press to get angry about his silence and avoidance. And it's time for him to tell us the full extent of what he knows.

Will the legacy of this administration be the institution of "the accountability moment?" Sullivan is dead on when he writes that public officials, who we imbue with our trust and one third of our salaries, are reportable to us, the American people. I'd like a status report please, Mr. Cheney.