I have in no way misrepresented him. He has advocated nuclear first strikes as rational and moral and defended torture, he has done so both in writing and in speech. He may later have tried to backpedal on some of his repellent views but by no means all of them. But note that even then he both advocates massive "collateral damage" while protesting that he "only" thing torture is no worse than "collateral damage".
But I really can't be arsed to play link footie over the views of a third party.