The desperation of torture apologists

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

The question is not "Who believes 'M.C.'?".

The question is, "Who believes anything the administration says about torture?".

The Malkins do, apparently. Hope springs eternal and all that.

Hope springs eternal, as does straw-grasping.

Some of M.C.'s descriptions match accounts...Not all. Just some.

Also, M.C.'s descriptions "match accounts" given by others. That simply means that some of M.C.'s claims resemble claims of other detainees--a far cry from "corroboration" don't ya think?

No, not really. In fact, it's kind of the definition of "corroboration."

There is simply no way that interrogators and guards would subject a young boy to harsher treatment than a high-value detainee like al-Qatani whose interrogation methods had to be personally approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

When I sleep, I dream that even the Malkins will recognize that absolutist, common-sense statements like the one above are inoperative under this administration.

Auguste's Corollary to Occam's Razor: When dealing with the Bush administration, the most insidious explanation is usually correct.