The conservatives always hijack control of an issue by using a very unlikely hypothetical in the verbal equivalent of the rodeo-clown diversion, often to great success. The Liberals never catch on and turn the tables on the masters of the political agenda. Charlie the K (AKA Charles Krauthammer of the renowned Washington Post) is dominating the Torture Debate with some off-the-wall imaginary scenarios, and the dummies on the left are acquiescing. Why not challenge him with some possible (but not likely) exceptions to his (hypothetical) exceptions. If there’s not going to be a serious “stick to the subject” (Do you condone War Crimes?) debate; why not have some sophomoric fun?
If (heavens fore fend!) the Liberals ever grew a pair and decided to stand up to those who would control the discourse, it might look something like the letter I sent to Charlie the K. Naturally, the only reply was an automatically generated e-mail but, since we can write our own column, we will reprint our e-mail which fell on deaf ears and wouldn't there possibly be some hypothetical exceptions to the exceptions? Why didn't he bring up the possibility that a logical response to his suggested hypothetical exceptions might elicite some hypothetical exceptions to the exceptions? Gees, does he need an assistant?
Here is the e-mail we sent to him
Hi Mr. K!
I have two (hypothetical) questions about your two (hypothetical) exceptions for condoning American torture:
Would it be OK to use extreme questioning methods on a suspected terrorist who might have valuable information about a developing terrorist attack if the suspect was your mother?
Would you be willing to do the questioning?
I love injecting hypotheticals into debates and will probably write a column quoting this letter.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Then comes the possibility of hypotheticals being added to the hypothetical: if the terrorist suspect was his mother-in-law and not his mother, that might change the perspective on the exception to the exception questions, wouldn't it?
We understand that Charlie the K is very busy these days being the leading spokesman (Republicans don't have "spokespersons") for the fans of extreme questioning and won't have time to send us a personal reply, so we invite any Charlie the K fans, who might read this, to be his proxy and respond in the comments section below.
Thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s inexcusable meddling and incompetence, the topic of torture now reverts to a Benjamin Franklin quote from the Revolutionary era: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." So, if the Democrats press ahead with indictments they'll go down with the Republicans.
Obviously the Democrats don’t want to be included in any prosecutions for the extreme methods of questioning that they have (retroactively) sanctioned too, so it’s time to forgedaboutdit. They have, in the modern vernacular, “queered the deal.”
Enjoy your retirement, 43!