Torturous editorial

Here's a response I wrote to an edit by the Wall Street Journal:

Even with Bush approval ratings in the toilet, the WSJ edit board is still carrying the Bush administration's water. It's not like Paul Gigot and the rest of the you on the editorial staff had much credibility before this piece was written, but now in addition to being devoid of credibility, you are morally bankrupt.

It's hard to believe that a bunch of candy-ass chickenhawks like yourselves would second-guess John McCain about the unforseen consequences of banning the inhumane treatment of prisoners. McCain has forgotten more about torture than the entire editorial staff will ever know. And he probably hasn't forgotten much -- something tells me that being tortured is something one doesn't readily forget.

How do you think history will remember this "pro torture" edit? I hope you'll have the courage of your convictions and own up to and take full responsibility for your work, but I doubt it. Not if your history is any road map. But no matter how many times you say "no comment" when asked about this edit in the future, you're still responsible for it, you still advocated torture. Looking back, you'll be ashamed of this low-water mark in your paper's history. Too bad you were too dumb to be ashamed of it on Friday, when you still had the chance to kill the piece.

It used to be that you read the WSJ and house-trained your dog with the edit page. Readers knew it and accepted it. But at some point management has to be held accountable. So I'm done with your paper. As long as you amoral hacks collect a check for contributing to the WSJ, I will acknowledge its existence only to point out what a piece of shit it is and I'll share this edit with anyone who still might be on the fence about your publication.

Have a nice, torture-free day. Unlike you, I don't advocate torture.