SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The cover story for the October Atlantic is an open letter from Andrew Sullivan to former President Bush. The subject is torture. Sullivan appeals to Bush to end his silence and intercede directly in the current debate by acknowledging that his administration’s torture policies were a mistake. Over the past eight years, Sullivan underwent a remarkable transformation—from a strong supporter of Bush and champion of the Iraq War, to one of the fiercest critics of Bush and of the way he went about pursuing the war. Yet his voice in this letter is extremely conciliatory. One of the most remarkable things about it is a catalogue of the things Bush got right. I don’t agree with Sullivan’s entire list, but reading it through did make me think that his critics over the last eight years have largely refused him his due.
We are still far from fully understanding the internal processes that led to the introduction of the torture regime. At this point, however, it is clear both that Dick Cheney originated the torture policies and that, since the 2008 election, he has taken ownership of them. Bush’s own role is ambiguous, but it seems clear that around the time of the Abu Ghraib disclosures he took a decision to halt many of the worst abuses of the program. It also seems clear that this program was a point of friction between Bush and Cheney that became progressively more acute as his term wore down.
Is there any serious prospect that Bush will do as Sullivan asks? One of Bush’s most revealing traits throughout his presidency was his tenacious refusal to acknowledge any mistakes. Of course, that may have been motivated by tactical political concerns, which fade at the end of a presidency. If Bush really is concerned about his legacy, there is little he could do now that would restore it more than to offer the public the candid and critical introspection that Sullivan recommends.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”