On the Futility of Arguing With Hacks

The Plank has an amusing account of Andrew Sullivan embarrassing Men in Black clown Mark Levin as the latter demands evidence and then goes on to describe the proffered evidence as “looney,” which seems to mean “contradicts the unsubstantiated claims of Mark Levin.” Having been thoroughly humiliated, Levin calls in the blogosphere’s most prominent Bush lickspittle, who repeats an old smear:

In the interest of some clarity, Andrew Sullivan invokes a legal definition of torture, which is progress. But does he think it includes things like fake menstrual blood, and being wrapped in the Israeli flag?

Because he’s made much of those things. If he thinks they fall within the legal definition, then he’s not very serious. If he doesn’t think they fall within the legal definition, then — given his repeated treatment of those subjects as “torture” — he’s not very serious.

Reynolds backs up his claim that Sullivan has “repeatedly” described being wrapped in the Israeli flag as torture by linking to a particularly odious past piece of Instahackery, which lied about Sullivan’s position while engaging in some vicious gay-baiting on the side. To get a reminder about Reynolds’ intellectual honesty, let’s consider what Sullivan actually wrote:

…after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to “Fuck Allah,” after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran?

You’ll note that he discussed the menstrual blood and Israeli flag incidents separately from torture, and nowhere describes these incidents as torture. (As for the argument that this is a “repeated” claim, Reynolds provides his usual amount of evidence: none.) The lengths of dishonesty that people like Reynolds and Levin will go to in order to uncritically defend the Bush administration while pretending not to support torture are pathetic, and instructive.

…more on Reynolds’ torture apologia at Sadly, No!