Worthless disavowal

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the president's nominee as attorney general, disavowed the use of torture during his Senate hearings, and said he would uphold U.S. laws and international treaties against torture but also continued to back broad presidential powers in fighting terror. Link

Yet given the administration's stance (as phrased by Gonzales) that, "This administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture," his condemnation of torture strikes me as worthless.

What about the "aggressive interrogation tactics," that have been used in Abu Ghraib? Were they considered torture? According to this editorial, they were at least "abusive." Do they count? What exactly does Gonzales consider "torture" that he would disavow? And what methods does he condone?

With such toe-the-president's-line positions, I really don't like him as a good Attorney General, moreso since he's coming from the position of White House counsel.

And he's regarded as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court? Thumbs down....