Over at the National Review, Mark Levin had this to say about Andrew "I hate torture" Sullivan:
Sullivan considers himself an opponent of torture. But he's not. He's against the war in Iraq, which has ended a great deal of state-sponsored torture, not to mention state-sponsored rape, state-sponsored executions, and all the other inhumanity unleashed by maniacs like Saddam Hussein.Apparently Levin's warped NR mind works this way: if you don't support every aspect of the way the war if fought then you are against it, if you are against it then you are for Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein tortured people, thus, if you don't support every aspect of the war then you support torture. Now if this progression was actually logical, Sullivan would come off as pretty dumb (half-point for Levin), but it would also make a pretty strong case against torture (1000 points for Sullivan). I mean, if one of the reasons we toppled the Hussein regime was to stop its state-sponsored torture, then surely we shouldn't be employing the same techniques. Right?Too bad Levin doesn't use that same logic in his views, although I think I know someone who does...Oh yeah, his name is Andrew Sullivan! You know, the one who supported the war in Iraq for its promise of replacing a terrible regime with a liberal, democratic one. Oh well, too bad Levin hasn't heard about him.