Again with "the benefit of the doubt"

Andrew Sullivan deplores torture but agrees President should get benefit of doubt:

GONZALES AND TORTURE: In my opinion, no one who has enabled and sanctioned the potential and actual use of torture should become attorney general of the United States. But I'm not the president; and he doesn't see it that way. And the people who re-elected him had plenty of opportunity to avail themselves of the fact that this administration has quietly enabled torture of inmates in American custody, and that Gonzales played a critical role in making the legal case for such previously outlawed practices. The Bush administration's use of torture - to the point of death in at least five cases and possibly 23 more - was one reason I found it impossible to support the president's re-election. But this is a democracy. And my candidate lost. Gonzales isn't being nominated to the Supreme Court; he's being nominated to become the president's chief law enforcer; and, in general, the president deserves the benefit of the doubt on his own picks. Should the Democrats make a stink? Of course they should. The hearings are an opportunity to raise awareness of what this administration has done in dozens of hell-hole prisons around the globe - some of which we will never even know about. The Gonzales argument that the president has the right to circumvent all anti-torture laws because, as commander-in-chief, there should be no limits on his conduct of the war is an argument worth airing. So let's air it. Let the president and his attorney general defend it. In public.
- 1:34:57 AM

Can I just say:NO. And No. A Thousand Times No. THIS PRESIDENT DOES NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. EVER. HE USED THAT UP.