Is Obama Reading Andrew Sullivan? References Similar Torture Post During Presser

Is Barack Obama reading blogs, particularly the site of one of his campaign's most committed supporters, Andrew Sullivan?

At his press conference on Wednesday evening, the president defended his decision to end the use of torture on detainees, by citing an article he had recently read, in which it was noted that during World War II, Winston Churchill refused to use such tactics on the spies captured by the British.

"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees," said Obama. "And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

Which article he was referencing was a mystery to both the press corps and members of Obama's own communications team who, in the minutes after the press conference, professed to being in the dark.

Challenged to do some digging, the Huffington Post's Marcus Baram found what seemed to be the right match.

On April 23, Sullivan, a native of England himself, penned a post titled: "Churchill vs Cheney." In it, the Atlantic scribe noted that despite having "captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere," and having his country's "very survival [hanging] in the balance," Churchill "knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting."

Asked whether the Sullivan post was, in fact, the point of reference for Obama's remarks, aides to the president did not immediately return request for comment. But the similarities are certainly suggestive.

Important to note, however, is how Sullivan ended his article by declaring: "Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him."

Obama, who has shied away from the topic of prosecution (indeed, stated his preference not to "look back"), left that bit out.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[nomilk]

Why did Obama lie?

[naschkatze]

They are only novels, I know, but in Paul Scott's Raj Quartet the British certainly did use torture in wartime India.

[LiamSherborn]

I certainly hope Obama reads Andrew. He presents a rational alternative to those now in power. I support them and disagree with some of what Sullivan says BUT a democracy needs an opposition and since the right has lost people like Buckley and others who at least presented a rational counter-argument, we have been left with "Left or Lunacy" - a situation that does not lead to the best solutions.

[flamflurm]

Sullivan is lunacy embodied.

[tapeatsbill]

The Brits may have tortured and probability is good. We apparently have indeed been torturing.

The question sits before us now however and must be answered. Do we come clean; punish those that ordered the torture and boldly state NO TORTURE.

Or do we sweep it under the bed and try to sleep at night?

[WarSkeptic]

Personally I don't have much respect for Sullivan

I just can't get past the fact that he is a super religious, gay, conservative who worked for Bush.
Not a fan of "The New Republic" either, which he was the editor of.
He supports flat taxes and privatizing social security and other nonsense like that for economics
He supported the Iraq war
He supported calling POW's enemy combatants ect.
Yes I realize he jumped on the Bush bashing bandwagon, but that ain't enough.

[tapeatsbill]

Yeah. I remember first seeing him on some talking head show and realizing that he was very Catholic, as I recall, AND gay AND was supporting some conservative issues. A complex out of the norm guy for sure.

The question remains unanswered by you. Do you agree with Sullivan's position on torture?

[WarSkeptic]

What position?
The one in 2003 when he favored them being called enemy combatants? No I didn't

Like I said it takes more than jumping on the Bush bashing bandwagon after the fact.
And I don't believe for a second he favors prosecution for torture no matter what he says. If it ever looked like it was really going to happen he would oppose it. No doubt in my mind

[AgathaX]

Andrew's is one of the most astute voices out there. He ought to be reading him.

[flamflurm]

He's a monomaniac ha-ck

[RODERICK098]

I hope not . The man is one confused commentator. Listening to him its like his brain just had an egg beater run through it. A gay Rethuglican-how crazy is that

[ibivi]

Read him from time to time. His writing is more focused.

[RODERICK098]

Anyone who extolls the virtues of Ronald Reagan-there were none-vcannot be taken seriously

[Room237]

May I suggest that all US politicians and pundits accept a moritorium on Churchill references

[KarenGeorgetown]

Yes, and Hitler.

[CherokeeGirl]

that's the last thing Obama should be reading.

[flamflurm]

ditto

[RenoSage]

Prosecuting wrongdoers can be very costly. It is not at this time a pressing expense.

Better concentrate on jobs, healthcare, and other important issues, and then and only then attack the
problem of aggressive interrogations. It's not going anywhere, and will still be there.

[dashboard]

They spent $40 million on the Clinton hearings and impeachment, they can do this.

[Rednecks4Obama]

But apparently Britain did torture. See Michael Tomasky's column today in The Guardian, entitled Mr. President: Britain Tortured!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/apr/30/obama-administration-torture?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

[flamflurm]

Was obvious the moment Obama said it, and without references and citations. Dresden ring a bell, anyone?

[poster1122]

Except that, W also said "We don't torture."

Both he and Churchill lied. Google "London Cage Kensington" about British torture by MI:19 during WW2 (and a little past). It's actually pretty well-documented.

When faced with life and death scenarios, even the most heroic (-seeming) of us fall short of our ideals.

[ENOS]

true, we all have failings, but that is no reason to lower the bar

[flamflurm]

By lowering the bar I suppose you mean we should take our president's historical references as our vice-president's advice on pandemics.

[AmericanWarrior]

The main problem with Obama, is he reads too much and he actually takes time to weight all sides of an issue or argument. If only he was more narrow minded and conceited like "good ol' W." and The Banana Republican Party thugs. Then maybe he would embrace torture, spygate, lower taxes for the rich, higher taxes for the poor, suppressing wages for main street, and starting wars with lies! ! !

[InfosolutionWiz]

HAHAHAHAHA! Good Points!

[dxz]

American warrior, I totally agree with you. That will teach us in the next election cycle NOT to vote for someone who acts based on research findings, but for someone you can have a beer with, who acts with gut feelings. I agree with you

[tapeatsbill]

I knew it a deamn Reader! Life was so much better when we had a President who didn't read.

[LittlePurpleUSA]

Yes, because I'm sure O has nothing better to do than read Andrews blog...

[helpusa]

I guess you don't realize that he can be president and be a reader too!!

[TJC]

If we do not remember history it can sometimes repeat itself.

Fair enough that the British were not always benevolent, however since that time we have evolved and there is a need to move to the center and move on with a focus forward.