Isn't it a bad idea for Mark Levin to invoke McLellen in the context of the Iraq war? I mean, here is a clear historical example of a President acknowledging mistakes, and holding someone accountable for it during wartime. The former isn't seriously expected, because it's implicit in the latter.

Also, I doubt that Grant approved of forcing Rebel prisoners into group masturbation. And if he did, I'm certain that's not the reason the North won.

I hold to the principle that decent, honorable men can reasonably and respectfully disagree about the issues of our time, but reading someone glibly shrug off torture, I wonder if that's possible.

National Review should get their story stright, btw. Currently, they feel that the torture is the result of some out-of-control rednecks, and not the fault of the Bush administration, but also believe that were it policy, that'd be okay too, and maybe it should be policy.

Jackals.