Op-Ed Columnist - The Banality of Bush White House Evil - NYTimes.com

New York Times by Frank Rich | Apr. 25, 2009 (Opinion)

WE don’t like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a “Trench Coat Mafia,” or, as ABC News maintained at the time, “part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement.” In the new best seller “Columbine,” the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers ... Full Story »

Posted by Kelly Garrett

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Politics
Topics: Torture, Bush Administration
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kelly Garrett - Apr 27, 2009 - 5:59 AM PDT
Reviewed by: Kelly Garrett (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kelly Garrett - Apr 27, 2009 - 5:59 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kelly Garrett
3.8
 by Kelly Garrett - Apr. 27, 2009

A thoughtful examination of the motivations behind the torture memos, offering more evidence than many opinion pieces. Compared to the rest of the argument, support for the claim that the Bush administration endorsed torture in order to support its Iraq agenda is relatively weak.

I find the arguments *against* fact-finding panels, such as the one advocated here, compelling. I fear that they could produce more finger pointing than facts, or (perhap more likely) that even if done well, the facts will be hard to make out amidst the partisan clamor. Those who opposed the Bush administration and the war in Iraq will presumably find evidence for their cause, while those who supported the prior administration will see only Liberal mud slinging. Nevertheless, I ... More »

Kelly posted this story.
See Full Review » (12 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

not enough reviews
from 1 review (10% confidence)
Quality
3.7
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Style
4.0
Context
4.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!