Just read this paragraph:

But [Bush] alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

Equanimity as human beings are routinely tortured by his order. That's the leadership Krauthammer admires.

Notice what Charles cannot say: that torture is what Bush (bizarrely) believed kept us safe. In fact, Krauthammer even dials back his own previous defense of torture and support for a US torture squad. He even dials back from "enhanced interrogation," the usual eupehmism many neocons use to defend their support for Gestapo methods once used in Europe. No the absurd euphemism for violating the Geneva Conventions must now be phrased merely as

"asking hardened killers about their plans."

If all the president had ever done was ask hardened killers about their plans, there would be no debate and no controversy. What Bush did in plain English was torture terror suspects, many of whom had no solid evidence of any sort against them.

Well we now know what Krauthammer believes the role of a journalist is: speaking power to truth. And we know what he believes the role of a democratic leader is: showing equanimity as he enables war crimes.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.