Bashing Bush Through "An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare"

While I don’t mean to denigrate, or even doubt, the psychological trauma that Eric Fair claims to have incurred, his published article in the rabidly anti-Bush Washington Post about what he experienced as a contract interrogator in Iraq raises an eyebrow. Indeed, my eyeballs just rolled when I read Fair’s suggestion that the wanton prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, which the military began investigating well before it ever became news, is indistinguishable from the apparent approved interrogation practices of particular captured terrorists who may have information about planned terrorist plots. And the evidence Fair puts forth to support this suggested comparison, continuing violence in Iraq, is less than persuasive.

On a related front, some are quite predictably using Fair’s article as an opportunity to reassert their belief that the Catholic Church regards deportation torture to be “intrinsically evil,” and that anyone who disagrees with this is just a mindless apologist for SatanBush. Yeah, I don’t exactly know how he makes this connection either, but BDS has been known to make people lose all semblance of sense and sensibility.

Update (2/11/07): Somehow, I don't think the vital information provided by the detainees mentioned here was obtained by offering them milk and cookies.

Oh. My. Gawd.

The Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, states in a radio interview that he does not know what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's position on legalized abortion is.

One of the show hosts described Pelosi as "not only pro-choice, but she would be someone who would be working to try to keep abortion legal." The Archbishop was asked, "In your view is she less of a Catholic because of that?" He replied saying about Pelosi, "We haven’t had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it."

Un-freakin'-believable.

I Can't Be the Only One to Have Noticed This

So there's been some going back and forth in the conservative blogosphere about the sincerity of Mitt Romney's pro-life conversion. Those who are suspicious of it point to statements Romney made as recent as 2002 wherein he expressly said he respected and would protect a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Supporters of Romney say that his past statements should not be held against him, and that it should be noted that Ronald Reagan, when he was the governor of California in the late '60's, did more to advance abortion rights than Romney has ever done as an elected official. (Reagan had signed a bill which effectively decriminalized abortion in California. It has been reported that Reagan deeply regretted doing this one year later after learning of the large number of abortions that had been performed).

I, myself, tend to fall into the camp that finds Romney's newfound pro-life position to be suspicious. Not so much because his shift is a 180 from the position he held as late as 2002, although it's certainly significant, but mostly because I haven't heard or seen Romney say or suggest that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. (It is well worth noting that in a 2002 Planned Parenthood questionnaire, Romney indicated affirmative support for the substance of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling). Until he says Roe v. Wade is bad case law, I really don't think Romney's new position on abortion can be taken all that seriously.

Theological Query Re: Torture

If, as some would argue, torture is held to be intrinsically immoral by the Church, why then doesn't the Church condemn Christ for willingly participating in the manner by which His Passion occurred? Christ, after all, had foreknowledge that He would be brutally tortured, and could have easily escaped.