Well, putting that personal attack aside (but see tagline), I have to say that I don't think Mitt has commited a faux pas at all. Nobody is condoing torture. Period.
The great military leaders you listed previously, lived in a pre-9/11 world.
If it comes down to stopping a terrorist attack on a major US city by using some of these techniques, I think I'd have to side with Bush and Romney on this. There is no eye-gouging, acid being poured or limbs breaking etc. No Jack Bauer stuff.
The most severe of the techniques is rarely used and is reserved only for a very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees believed to possess critical intelligence.
____________________________
Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" asked Hennen.
"It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.' We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in," Cheney replied. "We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."
_____________________________
To read the techniques requested is to understand how restrained the military has been in its approach to terror detaineesand how utterly false the torture narrative has been. A detainee could be poked only after review by Gitmos commanding general of intelligence and the commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, and only pursuant to careful coordination and monitoring.
It is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.