the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocentsand fears he may have been right. If his review is any gauge, those fears are justified. Two paragraphs before, he characterizes those who "made the most fuss" this way:
dedicated opponents of the war in the first place...eager to use this scandal to promote their agendas.
If Sullivan can't avoid characterizations like this in an article critical of the administration and its torture record, can there be any doubt how Kerry criticism on this subject would have been judged?