Krugman- Shadow of the Torturers

[n2doc]

May 7, 2011, 8:10 AM

After reading John Yoo’s attack on the president for not taking Osama alive and bringing him to Gitmo, I thought I might take a minute to explain something I sometimes say. Once in a while I mention, in passing, that the Bush administration saw torturing people as a plus, not a cost. And whenever I do, some readers clutch their breasts and reach for the smelling salts: how dare I say such a thing?

But it’s true — not because they’re sadists, but because it suited their self-image.

From day one of the War on Terror (TM), it was clear that the Bush people reveled in the notion that they were tough guys, willing to Do What Needs to be Done. They were all wannabe Kiefer Sutherlands. Far from showing qualms about suspending the rule of law and using torture to extract information, they obviously enjoyed the idea that they were willing to go all the way, unlike those wimpy liberals.

Of course, they never admitted that, probably not even to themselves. But did you ever see the slightest hint of reluctance or discomfort? Or did you see tremendous self-satisfaction as the acts became ever more abusive?

And so they are, inevitably, deeply upset that someone who isn’t a tough guy by their standards seems to be doing a better job of getting the terrorists than they did.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/shadow-of-the-torturers/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Krugman hits the nail right on the head, as he often does.

All that puffery from the righties about torture and gettin' the bad guys dead or alive had everything to do with "proving" how tough they are. I'd go a little farther: I think that what happened on 9/11 -- even beyond the obvious destruction and loss of life -- resulted in unbearable humiliation for those who saw the U.S. as the world's tough guy, the John Wayne of nations (and, if I live in a tough country, I'm tough, too, right?).

After all, weren't we seriously punk'd by a small group of assholes armed with nothing but box cutters? And didn't this cause the national dick to go all flaccid? So ever since then, there has been this constant chest-beating from the humiliated watchers of "24," desperate to restore their own national/self-image of manly, hairy-chested toughness. And only Republicans could do it because Democrats are soft, sensitive girly-men who would just get the vapors and clutch their pearls whenever anything remotely military is even suggested.

And that's what's driving the GOPers crazy now. Our guy turned out to be tougher (not to mention more competent) than their guy, and now in a way they're humiliated again. Punk'd by a Democrat.

Ha.

[rfranklin]

2. They also had to distract from their failure to prevent 9/11...

Coverin up that and their lies about Iraq was always behind all the fanatical efforts to squelch any political opposition. Perfect example: Valerie Plame and her husband.

[malaise]

3. Excellent read

Rec

[crickets]

4. Torture suited their self-image

precisely because they’re sadists. Sadism is bullying on steroids and they reveled in it. Bullies are the types who openly declare cruelty to be cool, it's part of their allure to other bullies. Bushco practically put sadism on a billboard for all to see.

they obviously enjoyed the idea that they were willing to go all the way... they never admitted that, probably not even to themselves

People who went to the trouble of getting attorneys to write it up as legal definitely spent enough time thinking about it to admit a great many things to themselves. Yes indeedy.

Great piece, but Krugman is a bit too kind.