The Right And Abu Ghraib, Ctd

A reader writes:

No doubt you will make a persuasive case throughout the next few days by quoting pundits on the right as they exhibited a distinct lack of moral clarity on this issue. But please remember: for every Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldberg you quote, there are the Daniel Larisons and John Schwenklers out there who not only spoke out defiantly and resoundingly against the use of torture techniques based upon their conservative beliefs, but also opposed the invasion from the outset based on those same premises.

Conservatives have an obligation to reflect on their role in allowing the committing of such heinous crimes, yes, but conservatives ought also look within their ranks to see from which corners the correct conclusions were reached and why.

There is a conservative case to be made against the use of torture and people like Larison and Schwenkler went about making it loud, clear, and unwaveringly. A wholesale condemnation of American conservatism is simply not helpful in this case, it inhibits learning, moving forward, and the hope that something like this will never occur again because such condemnation doesn't allow the appropriate room for much needed reflection, and because it is factually inaccurate.

I take the point. Writers such as Larison and Schwenkler and Shea did indeed stand up. They were, alas, eclipsed by the general capitulation on the right, exemplified by National Review, The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, let alone Commentary, and even Krauthammer, who penned a clear argument for a special torture squad, on the same line as elite Gestapo officers. And then there were those who simply looked away and said nothing. They know who they are. History will make them more famous than they now are.