Yes, you.

Bill actually responds to Mike's great rebuttal of his pro-torture post by whining:

Morally Repugnant...Who, Me?

Yes, you, asshole - and not least because of your cowardly refusal to engage in honest debate with someone who disagrees with you. Bill demonstrates his mental vacuity by claiming that Mike, whom he calls "some liberal blogger" as if they hadn't been corresponding for years, didn't "answer the question" and that:

The problem with this debate is that Liberals won't explain why they oppose it in light of the evidence that it saves lives, and the media certainly isn't going to press Barack Obama for an answer.

Thus does our Good Friend casually dismiss not only Mike's eloquent and lengthy post in which he does, exactly, "answer the question" but also volumes of additional articles that have done so. Which is not to say that the torture proponents haven't written reams about how it does "work" and why it's just peachy keen for our government to sanction the practice against the Ultimate Evil Enemy Of All Time - of course they have. But to claim that "liberals" don't "answer the question" is just plain stupid disingenuous, at best. It's not too hard to figure out, though, why Bill refuses to acknowledge points made by those who disagree with him - because then he might be compelled to respond and that might require some intellectual effort which is something our Good Friend Bill avoids like the plague. He is famous for refusing to answer questions from his commenters such as this one from "David":

How do you reconcile your opinion on torture with your religious beliefs?

and this one from the same troublemaker-who'd-better-watch-out-or-he'll-be-blocked:

Lets see how you guys feel about your boy Huckabee after what he said about George Bush and Iraq.

which of course Bill didn't respond to, prompting said troublemaker to repeat:

Where's the post on what Huckabee had to say about Bush?

So you see, Bill prefers the simple life where he is surrounded by sycophants who don't challenge him too strenuously and force him to think about things he doesn't want to and where he can get away with howlers like this one:

Let's see here, the economy is booming, Iraq is improving, there has been no erosion of civil liberties, and Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, the perpetrators have been punished, and it's far-fetched to say the least to blame President Bush for the incident. So much for facts.

Oh yeah, and we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. All in all, I would say that President Bush has been quite successful, especially in light of his predecessor's record.

which is included in a post he hilariously titles "The Left Begins To Rewrite History" and which brings me to another point that Bill managed to avoid in Mike's post. He didn't just call you "morally repugnant" Bill. He called you, appropriately, a "morally repugnant IMBECILE".

UPDATE: For those with at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, here is yet another discussion which "answers the question." (H/T TPM) Note:

And what do you think of the interrogation procedures the president described?

The fact is that the history of interrogation shows that you do not do particularly well when you confirm expectations, when everybody plays their preordained role. In this case, al-Qaida operatives are trained to believe that the United States, and representatives of the U.S., are bloodthirsty mobsters who will dismember and disembowel. The fact is, when we use harsh techniques we essentially say, "We are going to confirm your expectations."

What has largely worked in all the interrogations, what we got -- and in many cases it's not very much -- but whatever we got, for the most part occurred because we were, let's just say, a little more clever than that. Instead of going medieval, which is the tactic our enemies here embrace, we essentially find a way to confuse their expectations. In many cases, just by treating them as human beings we have created an environment where we get what we so desperately need, which is information that might help save American lives.

That's the key. The key is to not give in to anger, but to do whatever works best. There's clearly been a learning curve on that; some of the harsh techniques used early on have been I think largely abandoned because they didn't work.

"Treating them as human beings." Wow. What a concept. To think that this needs to be explained to Americans, much less Americans IN THE HIGHEST OFFICES OF OUR GOVERNMENT makes me sick in a way that I have no words to describe.