Via Ace, we have Obama spokesdroid Robert Gibbs admitting that waterboarding worked, but who knows what else would have worked?
In the category of things that work, there are two obvious categories: mean and nice. There is no logical room between them.
The mean things are being roundly criticized as Stuff We Wouldn't Do To Save LA. If there are mean things that are not as mean as those we used, how do we know that they would have been effective? And being effective, would that not signify that they were too mean?
The "nice" category is also properly bisected by "costs something" and "costs nothing".
The things that are nice and cost nothing, I trust we've already tried. Oh, we haven't? You've had 100 days. Put up or shut up. The only possible explanation, then, is that this category of things that cost nothing and are nice takes longer than 100 days to produce results. I posit that there are terrorists targeting the United States with action plans taking less than 100 days to implement.
The things that cost us something can be summarized as bargaining with terrorists.
So the official position of the Obama Adminstruation is that it's better to bargain with terrorists than to waterboard them.
Just so we're clear.
P.S.: Gibbs is now tacitly admitting that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners. Otherwise, we would not be able to question them at all.
Sphere: Related Content