Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Instaclown: Making Less and Less Sense

This is too good, Instaidiot on torture:

. . . Andrew Sullivan hopes for a public debate on torture, "coercive interrogation," and related issues. But I caught a few minutes of Limbaugh when I was out running errands today and my sense is that the GOP is thrilled with the idea of Congressional hearings in which Democrats can be characterized as soft on terror. It's the old "soft on criminals" routine revisited. How did that work out again?

I've been against torture since Alan Dershowitz was pushing it back in the fall of 2001. (Okay, actually I was against torture even before Dershowitz was pushing it). But I think the effort to turn this into an anti-Bush political issue is a serious mistake, and the most likely outcome will be, in essence, the ratification of torture (with today's hype becoming tomorrow's reality) and a political defeat for the Democrats.
OK, in this post we learn a few things about Instarepublican:
  1. He's against torture because that Jew Dershowitz is for it.
  2. He's against torture, but hopes that the Democrats will raise the issue because if you are against torture you are soft on terror. Okey Dokey.
  3. He's against torture but thinks that if you raise the issue it shows you are anti-Bush (which I guess means that Bush is for torture [Ed. I'm not following this either]) and anything Bush is for the American people will be for.
  4. He gets his talking points from Rush Limbaugh [Ed. OK we knew that already]
Does he make any sense these days?

Memo to everyone's favorite second-rate law professor and first rate republican hack Glenn Reynolds: Just do what you normally do, link to other people's posts (which you obviously do not read) and say "heh" and "ouch" and "indeed", talk about your ipod and digital camera. Otherwise, try not to say anything on your own about any real issue, OK? It's better that way.

UPDATE: Lest some readers be confused, the "do not read" hyperlinks are to specific examples where other bloggers clearly caught Glenn not reading what he was linking to as the links did not support at all what he was trying to say --- the most explicit is the link to Kevin Drum where Glenn had to admit that he just hadn't read what he linked to, but the one by Volokh is embarassing as well and if you trackback, you'll notice Glenn trying to weasel his way out of it by pretending he and Volokh just interpret the article differently. Orin Kerr again is too polite, but he basically mocks some post that Instaidiot tried to use as support for his constant whining about the plight of oppressed conservatives in academia.


Post a Comment

<< Home