..and how do you know the above statement is true? You wish! You are engaging in what is called the ‘Fundamental Attribution Error’; their gang does bad things because they are evil, my gang does bad things because circumstances force us to do so. Further, the more committed you are to your gang, the more blatant the error. I’d hazard you are pretty committed to your gang, given the complete lack of even an attempt to provide a reference for your claim.

Someone could say this: “Torture is distasteful, it’s important the American people think it isn’t happening when it actually is happening.” Now this is a very cynical position, but what it would do is protect President Obama’s having the issue both ways while slandering President Bush. Even though the position is cynical, one can see how it protects the government from ever more frequent populist backlashes in an increasingly open society.

In order to counter that argument most effectively, we really have to ask whether or not President Obama constantly attacking President Bush is a good thing. It’s actually a terrible thing when there can’t be anything like unity over the most basic security issues, when we can’t agree that Americans being safe is a good thing. The lie being perpetrated against President Bush/VP Cheney is incredibly dangerous: people are believing, as you rightly argue, that a gov’t can exist which protects people by doing nothing to protect them. In order to test that proposition, which is literally wishful thinking, one has to give terrorists and their ilk the initiative while attacking one’s own security establishment.

I know. It seems like I’m ranting. But those of you aware of how much high moral ground torture opponents are claiming is theirs know exactly where I’m coming from: we can’t afford for reality to give us all a wake up call in this case, and therefore we need the debate to engage the realities of power quickly, for the sake of all Americans and their allies.

Thanks for the reference to the Landes book. Many commentators refer to cognitive egocentrism as “mirror imaging” but never flesh out how it works and the consequences.

I DIDN’T, REPEAT — DIDN’T — CHECK THE “REMEMBER PERSONAL INFO” BOX. NEVERTHELESS, MY “NAME” AND EMAIL ADDRESS KEEP SHOWING UP NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I DELETE THEM OR REPLACE THEM WITH XXX. CAN YOU HELP ME GET THIS DELETED? I KNOW IT THE EMAIL ADDRESS DOESN’T APPEAR ON YOUR BLOG, BUT I’D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS IF THIS EMAIL ADDRESS AND NOM DE PLUME DIDN’T REMAIN. OTHERWISE, WHY THE “CHOICE?” HONESTLY, I WOULDN’T HAVE SENT A COMMENT IF I THOUGHT THIS WOULD GET STUCK ON MY COMPUTER.

THANKS FOR HELPING OUT.

One problem with Obama’s rhetoric to date is that he assumes that there are no gray lines when it comes to what he calls torture. He has reserved the definition of torture to himself, with the expectation that everyone will agree with his definition. He explains that there are no circumstances that justify its use, but an intellectual argument would consider both sides, no matter what the legal or moral conclusion.

If Obama’s argument is not intellectual, then his position on tortue would appear to be based on faith or religion. Applying a religious argument to a divisive matter is a symptom of a grave conflict in Obama’s character. He wants us to believe that people can reconcile different opinions by talking, but in this case he denies the merits of an opposing viewpoint, hence there can be no discussion.

Looking at Obama through the lens of his own logic, it would appear that the rift between his idealogy and the application of that idealogy is growing.