Last month, on NPR.
You didn’t hear about it? Neither did I. Nor did Captain Ed, who’s worth reading in full:
Bill Clinton’s party screamed loud and long about how the [detainee] bill enabled torture and departed from the Geneva Conventions. Russ Feingold described this legislation as “a stain” on our history, one we would regret, and soon. Yet none of these Democrats had anything to say when their last occupant of the White House not only endorsed torture but also a protocol for covering one’s butt after the fact.
Doesn’t matter. If you press them on their anti-“torture” absolutism by posing the ticking bomb scenario — which Clinton, to his credit, as least had the integrity to confront — they simply duck it by playing definitional games. Karol went through this with Sullivan three months ago when she guest-blogged for Michelle. Would he have tortured the ringleader of the UK airplane plot to foil an imminent attack, she wondered. Depends on whether the attack was “imminent,” suggested Sully, clintonistically.
Here’s a hint: no matter how imminent the attack is, it’ll never be “imminent” enough. Which solves the problem rather neatly.
Three minutes. The best part is at the very end, where Billy Jeff chuckles at the notion that anyone would oppose torture in a true ticking bomb situation. Reality-based, our BJ is.
Update: A BBC Global poll says most of the world opposes torture. I’ll resist the temptation to play the Sullivan game myself by asking what the meaning of “torture” is. Instead, click and note the numbers for terror hotspots: Israel, Iraq, and (comparatively) India. For some nations, the ticking bomb scenario isn’t hypothetical.