Scott Horton for a post so bad it could have been written by the award's namesake, Katrina vanden Heuvel. Video blogger and attorney Horton served up "Maddow, Powell, and the Need for a Torture Commission" last Friday and opened with: "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow presents Colin Powell, whom she clearly admires, with a series of very tough questions. Most of the Washington press corps could learn from this technique".
We watched the video of Powell and Chachi that he linked to and, no, she didn't ask tough questions (Horton Hears A Something) but more troubling was his suggestion, via sentence construction, that the DC press corps should learn to "clearly admire" the Blotted Collie Powell.
As any sane mind knows, the press has never been lacking in admiration for War Criminal Collie Powell. Scott Horton earned his Katrina and then some.
-------
Added 4-5-09 by C.I. Joan e-mailed to note that Bob Somerby took on another fool praising Rachel Maddow's clowning (note, we are linking to Bob, we are not including his links to people we do not link to for good reasons, use the link to read in full or seek out his links):
Pushing Powell: In this post, dday applauds Maddow for pushing Colin Powell about war crimes in Wednesday night’s interview. We agree with dday--but only up to a point. Once again, we'd have to say that Maddow's questions were weak and quite mushy. She gave an aggressive introduction--when Powell wasn't present. In the interview, when he was there, she largely backed down.
Did Powell take part in White House meetings where specific torture techniques were discussed and/or approved? That was the charge Maddow discussed in her fiery introduction. But when she actually sat with Powell, the questions were vague and quite soft. What follows is the first Q-and-A. This is the most direct question Maddow asked. Powell was quickly evasive:
MADDOW (4/1/09): On the issue of intelligence, tainted evidence and those things, were you ever present at meetings at which the interrogation of prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, other prisoners in those early days, where the interrogation was directed, where specific interrogation techniques were approved? It has been reported on a couple of different sources that there were principals' meetings, to which you would have typically been there, where those interrogations were almost play-by-play discussed.
POWELL: They were not play-by-play discussed, but there were conversations at a senior level as to what could be done with respect to interrogation. I cannot go further because I don't have knowledge of all the meetings that took place or what was discussed at each of those meetings. And I think it's going to have to be the written record of those meetings that will determine whether anything improper took place. But it was always the case that, at least from the State Department standpoint, we should be consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Convention. And that's why this was such a controversial issue. But you'll have to go—and in due course, I think, we all will go—to the written record of what memos were signed. I'm not sure what memos were signed or not signed. I didn't have access to all of that information.
That’s the most direct question Maddow asked--and even here, she talks about "specific interrogation techniques," not about "torture" or "water-boarding." Powell's answer, of course, is quickly evasive. Obviously, he hadn't been asked about meetings he didn't attend; he was being asked about meetings at which he was present. The follow-up questions write themselves: If the State Department favored adherence to the Geneva Convention, did you ever hear discussions of techniques that would have violated that convention--of water-boarding, for example? But that isn’t what Maddow asked. Instead, she went hypothetical:
MADDOW (continuing directly): If there was a meeting, though, at which senior officials were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, water-boarding, were those officials committing crimes when they were giving that authorization?
Pathetic. In this question, Maddow does mentions specific techniques. But the question she asks is hypothetical. Powell is removed from the scene.
The topic here was much more serious, but the questioning was very much like the questioning of Shaheen the previous week. Maddow talked a very good game in her introduction to this segment with Powell. But when Powell was actually in the room, she largely rolled over and died.