So, here is Sullivan's "challenge" to Hewitt:

I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.  They are completely, perfectly respectable.  The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful.  Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo?  Here's the report:

On a couple of occasions,  I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying?  Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against the prisoner are worthy of the United States?  Does he believe that this happened without authorization?  If here were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised?  Hewitt should then answer the same questions about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who dies in detention during or after "interrogation."  Does he deny that this happened?  Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this?  Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating.  I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it.  It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is.  Good for him.  Thank God for him. 

Before going any further, let's define the problem with Sullivan's rhetoric.  Everything for starters.  It embodies everything that is wrong with the Left's thinking and strategy these days.  It is typical of his and the Left's thinking about Gitmo, about Abu Ghraib, about Iraq, and the war on terror.  What do these four things have in common?  Their thinking on all of these issues represents nothing more than shameful political opportunism at any cost.  The payoff?  A continuing expression of vile, mindless hatred for President Bush.  Their vitriolic, borderline (and in some cases, over the line) insane hatred for George W. is only secondarily a personal thing.  It is primarily the manifestation of their impotence from their loss of power, and their embittered frustration at the downward slide of their party, their political fortunes, and their ideology.  So twisted has become the Democratic ideals, anyone or anything that stands in the way of the reacquisition of power is the enemy, is worthy of destruction at any cost, and will be attacked no matter what.

For the Dems, this means anything which might reflect positively on Republicans, conservatives or conservatism, or President Bush, becomes the enemy.  At the present, everything that has to do with a policy of the President's is attacked.  Again, no matter what.  The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are key targets because, with the exception of dishonest, hypocritical Democratic propaganda, both are successes.  The war on terrorism and the democratization of the now-free Iraq are both going well.  Dems will gleefully point out that Iraq is overrun with "insurgents," which is their way of trying to insinuate that civil war is breaking out, and that the People of Iraq are rebelling against American imperialism and occupation, and want us/U.S. out.  But the truth which the Dems and the Olde Media desperately strive to keep hidden is this: There are no insurgents in Iraq, at least, there are exceptionally few of them, other than the ever-shrinking number of Saddam leftover loyalists, who are being wiped out of existence.  The so-called insurgents are actually nothing more than external invaders of Iraq.  They come from Egypt, they come from Syria, from every Muslim nation in the Middle East, except Iraq.  These are not freedom fighters seeking to banish an invading enemy from their country.  They are themselves invaders of Iraq, desperately trying to prevent democracy and freedom from getting footholds in Iraq.  Both democracy and freedom--including especially freedom of religion--are bitter enemies of the Islamic state, not necessarily Islam, but of state-imposed Islamic dominance and totalitarianism.  But freedom and democracy will out in Iraq at the end of the day. 

But like the invading "insurgents" in Iraq, the Democrats, particularly the extreme lunatic Left of the party (which has come to define what the party stands for today), knows that successes like democracy in Iraq only further lessen the possibility of their regaining major political power in the U.S. any time soon.  Like the "insurgents" the Dems know that they cannot allow freedom--brought to you by George W. Bush--to succeed in Iraq, or they will fail.  Likewise, success by President Bush in the war on terror represents the further demise of the Democratic Party, and they know that they must also work to sabotage Bush national security/war on terror policy as well, in order to work their way back into power.  At least the Dems believe this is the way to reacquire power.  Like the Iraqi People, whom the Dems are more than willing to throw to the lions if it will aid in regaining power, the Dems are also willing to sacrifice the People of this country, the men and women serving in the military, and the reputation and status of the United States around the globe, in an effort to cast discredit on the President, so--in their twisted view--they main regain political power.

<<--Okay, okay, Andy...I'm getting to your questions-->>

What has all of this got to do with Andy Sullivan's challenge to Hugh Hewitt?  Simply everything.  One would hope that Mr. Sullivan has a mind of his own, but his statements call this, or his integrity, into question.  It's not for me to work out which is the case.  He may actually believe what he states; in which case, he is really just another America-hating lefty loser, with a few screws loose.  More likely, I think, is that he's bought into the party lines in hopes of damaging Bush and the Republicans in '06 and '08.  Certainly nothing wrong with flushing your own country down the toilet in the pursuit of a few puerile political goals.

Like so much the Left has been screaming about since the 2000 Elections, the American handling of its terrorist prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, constitutes but another political target.  The Big Hype this time around is the "T" word. . .Torture.  Dick Durbin's disgraceful performance, likening American treatment of terrorist prisoners to that of Jews at the hands of Adolph Hitler, or Soviet citizens at the hands of their own communist masters, or Cambodians at the mercy of Pol Pot, all representing the slaughters of millions upon millions, is but a small slice of the Left's plan to discredit the President by discrediting the war on terror and the war in Iraq, by discrediting everything about it.  Durbin lends his voice to the other luminaries of the Left and of the Democratic Party in doing so.  He is not alone, by a long shot, and he is not even the worst.  He joins just about every major player in the national Democratic Party structure.  Frankly, its easier to cite to those few in the upper reaches of the Party who had not dishonestly piled on to the opportunism of slander and distortion.  (Joe Lieberman may be one of the few hold-outs of note, but even he has been wavering of late.) 

Elected Democratic politicos join in with former-electeds, never-electeds, disgruntled civil servants, and fringe kooks.  The directory of the lunatic left, all of whom have played in the game of "get" anyone and anything if it means hurting George Bush, is enormous, and can't adequately be memorialized in such a small space as the internet.  Suffice to say, the list of those who have piled on, at the expense of the best interests of this country, its people, its military personnel, and its international position, are well-represented by the Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys, the Michael Moores and the Al Frankens, the Harry Reids and the Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers and the Hillary Clintons and the Charlie Rangels, the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons and the George Soroses...and the list goes on and on and on.  Each and every one of which have aided and abetted the attempted destruction of President Bush through lies, slander, distortion and dishonesty, to the detriment of this country, the likes of which has never been seen before...but which will not soon exit our political landscape.

<<--Alright, alright...I'm there...gimme a second-->>

To answer you, Andy, in a nutshell...I will not for a split second dispute the description given by the alleged FBI agent of a few prisoners at Gitmo.  I don't know whether the e-mail read by Durbin is on the level or not.  I will assume for argument's sake that it is, and it is from an actual agent describing what he saw.  It doesn't matter.  Nothing in that description, or almost any of the other descriptions that have been making the rounds, constitutes, in my opinion, either true Torture or the violation of any rights which are or should be accorded to terrorist suspects in American custody. 

Not the playing of loud rap music.  Not the deprivation of sleep, or extended interrogation sessions.  Not the chaining of inmates hand and foot to the bare cell floor.  Not the heat of an air conditioning system turned way down, or the cold of it turned way up.  Not the intimidation of terrorists with threats of death.  Not the waterboarding of terrorists, making them think they will die.  Not the humiliation of terrorists by housing them naked, or letting them be seen naked by women, or shaving off their beards, or, if it aids in obtaining information from terror suspects that might save American lives, a few of the tricks employed by Jack Bauer of 24 fame.

I particularly liked the episode from the season before last in which Jack had the terrorist watch a video feed of the terrorist's family being held captive, and had him watch as...seemingly...one of his two sons was threatened with execution, and then, when the terrorist refused to "talk," Jack gave the order, and one of the sons...again, seemingly...was executed on camera.  Of course, the point was, that the son was not actually harmed, it was all simulated to make the terrorist think it was happening.  And with the prospect of his last remaining son being executed if he did not cooperate, the terrorist did just that, he talked.  Was this a horrifying experience for the terrorist personally to undergo?  Certainly.  That's why it worked.  To be made to think your son is going to be killed, or watching what you believe is your son being killed, has got to be a horrifying psychological experience.  Just as with placing a terrorist in imminent fear of himself being killed.  None of it actually happens, but it is very effective psychological pressure brought to bear.  But is it torture?  No, no...and no.  In terms of terrorist-based warfare, it is a reasonable tactic to employ.  It is not torture. 

Torture is the applicable of intense or unremitting physical pain, particularly where it is imposed for purposes of punishment or for the enjoyment of the applier.  That is not what is going on with any American detainees.  And, no, we are not talking about the odd instance of an out-of-control renegade acting outside of the orders given.  If there has been any point to the ranting Left, it is the insistence that this all has been a coordinated, planned, systematic objective of the Bush Administration.  So the odd miscreant who acts without authority is not what we are talking about.

And let's try and get our rhetoric under control, Andrew.  To call just about any of what has been alleged torture is the height of absurdity, and a dishonor to American prisoners of war who had truly been subjected to torture.  I can only imagine that if John McCain could think clearly about the subject, he would have to admit that had he had the choice to undergo the very real torture he suffered at the Hanoi Hilton at the hands of the Vietcong, or to undergo the "torture" Gitmo detainees have been alleged to have suffered, he choose Gitmo without a thought.  And what's more, you've lost any semblance of a pretense to journalistic standards in your commentary, Andy, with the statement that the U.S. government had admitted to having "tortured" five detainees to death, and having caused the deaths of "scores of other" detainees during or after interrogation.  Dream on, Andy, dream on.  And keep repeating those unsupportable charges as long as possible.  Thanks to the impervious immortality of the internet, what you've written in your blogs will live on forever, and along with the rest of the Olde Media, the quality of your "journalistic" efforts will be judged as time goes by.

And the only "stain" on the honor of this country, is that which has been contrived by the Left,, in the slander and dishonor which they have imposed upon their own nation, for nothing more than cheap, puerile, political advantage.  The Dems will surely rot in history for their actions, if not in hell.