As Liberals Torture America
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (01/14/05)
SO THE TWO subjects in which Democrats are currently most interested are: (a) torture, and (b) the burning question of Abraham Lincoln’s sexuality. No joke. I guess this is what a liberal “agenda” looks like.
Both the New York Times and Time magazine have spilled ink on the was-Lincoln-gay question, thus adding precisely nothing to substantive discourse. Liberals are still so depressed over Bush’s victory that they’ve resorted to mocking the only Republican they haven’t called stupid: the Great Emancipator himself. After Democrats lose again in 2008, I look forward to reading about Gerald Ford’s bedwetting problem.
Somewhat improbably, the Bush-loves-torture argument is actually based on less evidence than the Queer-Eye-For-the-Honest-Guy debate. Liberals defended the Soviets over Americans during the Cold War, defended Gorbachev over Reagan directly after the Cold War, and now fancy themselves America’s moral beacon. Liberals understand American virtue like Johnny Depp understands shampoo.
When discussing “torture” and Alberto Gonzales, recall Attorney General Janet Reno’s armed raid of an American home back in the ‘90s. In an exciting little show of fascism, this was where Reno finally ended her hot pursuit of Elian Gonzales. Admittedly, 6-year-old Elian probably offered a fairly good IQ match-up for Reno, but surely the Justice Department had more important matters to which to attend — such as investigating al Qaeda. Janet Reno used her power to extract a little boy from his family and surrender him to Communism. But Democrats oppose torture.
During the interminable run-up to the war, liberals also hastened to oppose torture by overwhelmingly supporting President Bush’s effort to overthrow Saddam. Oh, wait; I suppose that didn’t happen. To wit, it was exactly the opposite. Right-wingers were the ones incessantly demanding that Saddam was a brutal dictator who must be removed, and Democrats were the ones filing their nails, preparing to denounce Bush the instant anything in the pending war went wrong.
The puerile Bob Herbert, writing another snoozy op-ed last week, wrote: “If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn’t recognize itself.” Earlier, another Times columnist sniveled, “You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.” Actually, you know how well Republicans are doing when liberals’ most appealing argument is that America should be nicer to terrorists.
At the moment, the best reason to oppose Alberto Gonzales’ nomination is that so many of these ludicrous Democrats are popping up to support it. If Democrats grin widely and tell you how much they like something, your best course of action is to run away. The fact that Joe Biden likes Gonzales is troubling.
So is the fact that Henry Cisneros, notorious Clinton apologist, positively drooled over Gonzales in a recent Wall Street Journal column. “In the 36 years that I have voted, I have supported and voted for only one Republican,” Cisneros wrote, showing his clear bipartisanship. “That was when Alberto Gonzales ran for election to the Texas Supreme Court….Judge Gonzales is better qualified than many recent attorneys general.” Henry Cisneros thinks it will be “good for America” if Gonzales heads the Justice Department. That’s scary.
Susan Estrich likes Gonzales, too. This is also bad news. I want liberals to hate the Attorney General, which was one of the more beautiful aspects of Ashcroft. In addition to performing splendidly, he made liberals fume with rage. That’s the way it should be. The most valuable members of this current Executive Branch — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft — are also the ones who evoke the most hatred in liberals.
So perhaps Gonzales is a bad choice. Maybe he’ll turn out to be a Colin Powell, or, worse, a Norm Mineta. But even if he does go bad, it won’t have anything to do with torture, because that’s an invented issue. Abu Ghraib, the best thing that’s happened to liberals in quite some time, was an isolated event, duly condemned by everyone who matters. As for Guantanamo, no torture has ever taken place there on Bush’s watch; Gonzales merely explored the possibility, so as to help separate legitimate handling of prisoners from genuine mistreatment. This was part of his job, and, manifestly, it was important.
The Senate should cautiously confirm Gonzales, so long as Barbra Streisand continues to disapprove. Meanwhile, I think we need to get to the bottom of this Lincoln mess.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
