Bush vs. Reality

O'Brien: "You heard what the president had to say, which is, essentially, the good news that out there is not getting reported. Have you found that to be true on the ground where you have been?

"MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, look, really, nothing could be further from the truth.

"I mean, the fact that, when President Bush talks about those living on the ground, and he cites General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad, I mean, these are men who could not be more divorced from the Iraqi reality. They very much live within a bubble, be it physically within the Green Zone or be it within the bubble of heavy U.S. protection.

"And this is true even for their advisers and for the commanders and the American soldiers. I mean, they never take the uniform off. The Iraqi people can never talk to them unless through a filter.

"It's very different than living amongst them. And when people say not enough good news stories are being told, you ask an Iraqi family what it is that they're experiencing when their street -- the bodies of their neighbors are showing up on their streets. Their kids can't go to school, for fear of crossing sectarian lines. And the kidnapping and killings are just going on around them."

Torture Watch

Warren Richey writes in the Christian Science Monitor about the clash of visions at the heart of the debate about torture.

"When does harsh treatment become inhumane? When does a coercive interrogation cross the line and become degrading?

"These aren't just difficult legal and ethical questions, they are a measure of US character and morality. That is the uniting point of a group of maverick Republican senators who object to rubber-stamping the White House effort to continue the controversial interrogation program by the Central Intelligence Agency.

"White House officials are approaching the issue from a different perspective. How much dignity is due a man who would plant a bomb in a preschool or eagerly detonate a device that could level Washington, D.C.?"

Newsweek's Evan Thomas reviews what we know about administration policy.

"The current debate over torture, specifically President Bush's efforts to gain congressional approval for certain interrogation techniques, is a confusing morass of stonewalling, half-truths and moral posturing wrapped up in politics and legalisms. The whole truth remains concealed behind a veil of government secrecy. Nonetheless, it is possible to piece together a picture of the how torture is actually used by the United States. . . .

"U.S. officials do not use the word torture to describe their own methods. Instead, American intelligence officials speak of 'aggressive interrogation measures,' sometimes euphemistically known as 'torture lite.' "