Yeah, sure.

Ye of little faith.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Seymour Hersh has to say in his New Yorker article when it arrives Wednesday. Hersh was interviewed briefly on the news just now, his story about Major General Antonio Taguba, who conducted the Abu Ghraib investigation and was ordered to keep it strictly to the Military Police unit at the prison and not pursue anyone higher up in the chain of command, evidently lays it out that Rumsfeld and the rest were more than aware of what was going on and that Rumsfeld, at least, lied when he was brought to testify under oath before Congress.

My guess is most people on either side of the issue assume they not only knew but initiated and approved the operation and when asked they lied. It seemed obvious from the news of the period, but it would be nice to have it all laid out for the benefit of those of us in the great unwashed. The idea the United States conducts torture as a national policy is a sensitive point with me. Betraying our national principles, betraying the very basis of the system created by the Founding Fathers, betraying any moral high ground we might have inhabited to chide others for pulling similar crap: all without any genuine national debate. Does it even work?

Since I don't think anyone believes they weren't involved, I don't believe any fuss will come of revelations contained in this New Yorker article, whatever they may be. Tragic, maybe, but that's just the fact. And it could be the article itself is a more shaded exposition of what may or may not have happened. Did Rumsfeld not only know of, but approve of, even initiate these forms of interrogation? They said he'd been aware of these torture techniques through military back channels and followed and approved of interrogations being undertaken of high value prisoners at Guantanamo on a daily basis. Be interesting to see.

Nobody cares about your opinion on the subject.

Yeah, but every now and then I have to let it out.