MyDD :: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's His Choice.

Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's His Choice.

by Matt Stoller, Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:34:38 PM EST

Let me emphasize Kos's point on John Warner's fear of the liberal blogs. Warner is apparently deciding whether to run for reelection, and he's weighing various factors, including the power of new media. Kos sayeth:

Here's a promise to the Republican Warner -- the Virginia and national blogospheres will be even more sophisticated, bigger, and aggressive than we were in 2006. If John Warner wants to avoid the Allen treatment, then a nice, cushy, comfortable retirement is a great option. Especially since the Dems will remain in the majority (and likely a larger one, at that) beyond 2008.

As one of the primary authors of a bill to let Bush torture people, Senator Warner ought to heed this advice.

You see us good libruls get all persnickety at the trampling of the Constitution by dried up moral traitors, and we're going to bring this up again and again and again if he runs. I don't know if Warner made a 'wise elder' mistake, thinking that compromise is always good, or is a genuinely bad guy, but it really doesn't matter, now does it? His bill passed.

So if Warner runs for reelection, I hope he likes the nickname Senator Torture. It's the only piece of legislation he's actually known for in recent public discourse (and Senator Dodd's going to fight on this, so it's going to come up). Oh, and Warner should also get used to photoshopped pictures like this.

Enjoy dealing with the blogs in 2008, Senator. Also, if you are an creative photoshop artist and want to help describe what his campaign will look like, put the pics in the comments or just email me a link. I don't open attachments, alas.

Tags: John Warner (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (3.00 / 1)

When did Jane Hamsher get the keys to the blog?

Blogs have been a big help to the Democrats, but Photoshop hasn't necessarily provided our finest hours.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:10:45 PM EST

Utterly True (none / 0)

There are far better ways to get the point across than doing something like that.

by MNPundit on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (3.00 / 2)

Oh dear did I cause a fainting spell?

This is torture, my friends. It's not pretty.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

The phrase "holier-than-thou" comes to mind.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Know what? (3.00 / 1)

I am holier than someone who gives George W Bush the right to torture people and ignore the Constitution.

by BlueinColorado on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know what? (none / 0)

Congratulations. Are you holier than me, because I recognize that this sort of over-the-top imagery is counterproductive?

For us to appropriate the images of Abu Ghraib is just as disgusting as the Republicans appropriating the images of 9/11. Matt should know better.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No it ain't (none / 0)

Senator John is part of this. He was chair of the Armed Forces committee. He had the power to stop this and he did not.

Remember all those savage jokes Jay Leno told about Cardinal Law? This is the same. Senator John is part of this and needs to be exposed as such.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it ain't (none / 0)

How did he have the power to stop Abu Gharib until he knew that it had happened?

Remember: this was not authorized behavior, and those directly involved have been punished -- Col. Thomas Pappas (relieved of command), Spc. Charles Graner (sentenced to ten years in federal prison), Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick (eight years in prison), Sgt. Javal Davis (six months in prison), Spc. Jeremy Sivits (one-year sentence), Spc. Armin Cruz (eight months confinement in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers), Spc. Sabrina Harman (six months in prison), Spc. Megan Ambuhl (reductioin in rank to private and loss of a half-month's pay) Pvt. Lynndie England (3 years sentence), Sgt. Santos Cardona (90 days of hard labor), Spc. Roman Krol (ten months confinement), and Sgt. Michael Smith (179 days in prison).

by Adam B on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it ain't (none / 0)

and after the fact, he had the power to investigate it, and chose not to. He was in a position to hold the entire chain of command from Rumsfeld down to Lyddie England and chose not to. He vowed to block the Military Commissins Act and then caved in.

Because John Warner supported a cleaned up and codified version of what England and Granier and the rest of them did, is there some sort of great moral difference? I would argue what Warner did was far worse, because he committed the United States to a policy of torture.

The comparison to "appropriating 9/11" simply makes no sense.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

I love it, wish I had thought of it first.

by Alice Marshall on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

So people disagree with your approach, and they are, what, lacking in the proper constitution and fortitude?

How about at least engaging in a discussion on the merits, rather than making insinuations of weakness?

by DavidNYC on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

So people disagree with your approach, and they are, what, lacking in the proper constitution and fortitude?

How about at least engaging in a discussion on the merits, rather than making insinuations of weakness

Fair enough. I am making a very clear point about the reality of torture. Torture isn't pleasant. It's awful. And discussions of it shouldn't conform to normal boundaries of comfort because the fact that America is doing it should make us uncomfortable as citizens. The idea that discussions of torture should necessarily be aesthetically neutral is symbol of weakness, a lack of seriousness in discussing a very serious subject.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 12:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

It is Senator John who has made it necessary to have a debate about torture. Torture shouldn't even be up for discussion. So it is necessary to send a message that we are going carry the battle to the torturers and they can't scapegoat enlisted.

I can't wait for Gilliard's photo shop. Or Watertiger, or Attaturk. Hee hee hee

by Alice Marshall on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (3.00 / 1)

Sure, but pretty much everyone agrees -- even the Republicans -- that what happened at Abu Gharib was outrageous and awful. Including, says this Salon article, John Warner himself.

The real issue is the use of things which constitute torture which Warner and other Republicans want to allow people to do in our name to those we have captured. Waterboarding, etc. If you want to do photoshopping, go there.

by Adam B on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:17:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (3.00 / 1)

pretty much everyone agrees -- even the Republicans -- that what happened at Abu Gharib was outrageous and awful. Including, says this Salon article, John Warner himself.

and what did John Warner, powerful Senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee do about it? He issued a strongly worded press release. In other words: Nothing.
This is a metaphor, and to my mind a valid one. Again, if this were a political cartoon, would everyone be up in arms?

by BlueinColorado on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:09:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

What was he supposed to do about it? The allegations were investigated, including in three hearings before his committee, and people were prosecuted.

It's the torture that he did authorize that's the issue.

by Adam B on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

And what did Senator John do about Abu Gharib? Not a damn thing. The torture continued, and when the Hamdan decision came down Senator John changed the law so the President could continue to torture people.

There is a time for savage ridicule, this is such a time and blogging is the perfect medium. Well done Matt.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (none / 0)

They held hearings. They brought in Rumsfeld and others and made them testify under oath. That's what Senators do.

It's the changes in law that are the issue, and they have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib.

by Adam B on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Utterly True (3.00 / 1)

There's a line which was crossed here. You can dismiss those of us who object as concern trolls, but I hope by the time campaign season actually rolls around you've reevaluated your judgment.

Everybody except the most fervent dittoheads agrees that Abu Ghraib was terrible. If you want to persuade people that the "torture bill" legalizes conduct in our name that's comparable to Abu Ghraib, you've got a tough case to make. This image is not going to provoke thought on the subject, it's going to provoke an emotional response. And that response will not be about John Warner, it will be about the poor taste of the Photoshop artist.

When I find myself arguing with a front-pager like this it makes me wonder if I truly understand the mission of the site. It seems to me we're not FDL and shouldn't aspire to be.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (3.00 / 1)

I agree. Perhaps we remember an incident involving Lieberman and blackface? Photoshopped images scream immaturity.

by malkori on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:23 PM EST

Lieberman and Warner (3.00 / 1)

the two images are hardly comparable. If this were an editorial cartoon instead of a photoshopped image, would that conform to the rules of High Broderism?

The point is made, it's valid, and if Warner doesn't like it, he can dissolve the Colin Powell Blind Trust he put his balls and his soul into when he caved into the White House on that vote and join Chris Dodd with a mea culpa speech.

That would be his finest hour.

by BlueinColorado on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Colin Powell Blind Trust he put his balls into (none / 0)

LOL! So true.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 12:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (none / 0)

I agree with other posters who referenced the FDL incident with the Lieberman blackface back in August. This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, Warner didn't really stand up on the torture issue, but the general perception is that he (along with McCain and Lindsey Graham) did. I don't think this kind of post will help break that perception.

I read MyDD for its analytical content, not for a cheaply-done Photoshopping. Leave it to pros like Dood Abides.

by PsiFighter37 on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:05:03 AM EST

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (none / 0)

I read MyDD for its analytical content, not for a cheaply-done Photoshopping. Leave it to pros like Dood Abides.

My thoughts exactly. Dood does clever work.

And MyDD is eminently civil.

by Books Alive on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (3.00 / 1)

Yes, Warner didn't really stand up on the torture issue, but the general perception is that he (along with McCain and Lindsey Graham) did.

So you accept conventional wisdom that's wrong because it's conventional wisdom? Ok then.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 03:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? It's (none / 0)

No, my point is that this kind of blog post doesn't help to break that perception in any meaningful manner. Those of us who visit here know well enough that Warner folded like a house of cards, but it won't accomplish anything beyond that.

by PsiFighter37 on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 03:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whose brand are we trying to damage here? (none / 0)

I'm not being prissy here (really...): swiftboating is inextricably linked with popular politics (way back to the 1828 prez election, if not earlier).

Neither side needs my permission to go at it hammer and tongs. And - well, 08 will be the first Youtube prez election, of course.

But - not even Sonny Bush ran the Swift Boat operation out of the Oval Office. There is such a thing as plausible deniability.

There's a time and a place for pshopping: this isn't my blog, but I'd say that this is not the place.

My greater concern is as to the credibility of the story.

Going back through the links, the source is a diary piece in the American Spectator. (That FOB outfit, y'know.)

And the attribution of the quote about the Big Bad Lefty Blogs?

a Republican political consultant who has worked in Virginia.

Only January 2 - but already we have a prohibitive favorite for Crappiest Blind Quote Explanation of 2007!

If this had been a similarly sourced piece about some darling of the lefty sphere, we'd have never have heard the end of it about shoddy biased journalism, and the VRWC.

Since it's a piece hitting a GOP and goosing said lefty sphere, it's taken as the absolute gospel truth.

Do we think the lefty sphere's quite ready for prime-time?

by skeptic06 on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:17:05 AM EST

Nothing to do with swiftboating (none / 0)

the Smear boat veterans for defense contracts were liars. There problem wasn't lack of civility or bad taste. Their problem was that they were liars.

Savage ridicule has a place in politics. The Kiss float played an important role in the CT primary, this sort of photo shop of Senator Torture could float around the world if we are willing to embrace it.

Go back in Virginia blogosphere and look at some of the very savage photoshop of Allen. Senator John is just as deserving.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing to do with swiftboating (none / 0)

My main point, as I said, was that this was a crappily sourced gossip column story in a rag that was a founder member of the VRWC anti-Clinton campaign.

Normally, the lefty sphere wouldn't take the trouble to piss on it.

Suddenly, because it boosts their own little empire and slates a Big Bad Thug, it's Moses's latest delivery of tablets.

But, since you go there: so far as I'm concerned, politics is a dirty business, and no holds barred.

But effectiveness and blowback are two key factors to consider for the side that's thinking of swifboating.

(Who cares whether it's true or not? Those who do are probably in the wrong game.)

A cartoon (in two or three dimensions) is different from a pshopped photo: it invites wilful suspension of disbelief much more easily, and is much harder to take umbrage at without being diagnosed with sense of humor deficiency.

A photo that clearly lies (like Matt's - I think Warner probably has an alibi for Abu Ghraib!) produces a cognitive dissonance with the reflex belief that the camera does not lie which has to be (and should be) overridden 'manually'.

Pshops are fine and dandy as a handjob for the easily pleased within the lefty sphere; unlikely to convert many VA voters to the Dem cause, or cause Brer Warner any sleepless nights.

by skeptic06 on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 12:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Scaring John Warner (none / 0)

Honestly, is JW afraid of big bad blogs? No, if he's worried about anything, bit might be another round of exhausting fundraising required to beat back a challenge from Mr. 70% approval himself, Mark Warner.

If the blogs want to be useful, they should be raising $ and excitement for a Senator M. Warner bid. We'll need another mnemonic campaign, like "Virginia, Make your Mark in 2008" to get voters to remember which Warner to check.

by freedc on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:35:44 AM EST

MARK Warner (none / 0)

Mark Warner is more likely to run for Governor.

We need to go after Senator John to show that we do not approve of torture.

by Alice Marshall on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:11:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's "we"? (none / 0)

Are you running? Because nobody retires from the Senate because of photoshop images on a blog.

VA Dems need to recruit candidates if we want to take the other Senate seat. Even if Warner retires, Tom Davis will have a lot of money and votes in NOVA, the traditional base for Dem candidates.

by freedc on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator John Warner or Senator Torture? (3.00 / 1)

Crude counter-airbrushes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were most helpful during Vietnam in the '60s and '70s. One thing they accomplish is to demonstrate that defiance is alive. It was a thing that worked.

by blues on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:30:54 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.