The New York Times fails to call torture torture. In addition, the continue to participate in misstating the facts regarding the clear pro-torture policies of the prior administration. The article implies, incorrectly, that all the involved lawyers at the DOJ were satisfied with the torture policies. They were not. This is very much like the falsities promoted as truth by the New York Times in the build-up to the Iraq war.
Andrew Sullivan provides the analysis (worth reading in full):
The gist: if you actually read the leaked memos, and absorb the details of the NYT piece, you find the actual story: that the OLC lawyers were under enormous pressure to approve whatever Cheney wanted, were denied time to get the whole thing right, (Bradbury was even kept on probation until he spat out the “legal” approvals they wanted), were told that the president himself was pushing hard, and that a couple of them, Comey and Goldsmith, believed that the torture techniques, although technically “legal” in their judgment, were “simply awful” and would come back to haunt them.
Update: More from Talking Points Memo here.
Comments are closed.