I'll try not to re-hash all the obvious points. But there are a few matters worth emphasizing
1. Abuse and torture at the hands of the U.S. military are nothing new. This is not to say that the U.S. military is the only outfit who practices such crimes, and it's not to say that everyone in the U.S. military is guilty, but as long as there are interrogations and pressures for intelligence, we will continue to see abuses like those at Abu Gharib. Whether it's "merely" stripping prisoners naked and humiliating them, or beating them, or sodomizing them with a brokern headlight (yes, that's been one of the recent allegations), or worse, what we've seen recently is nothing new. WSW has a nice little list In fact, this is some of the mildest abuse that takes place. Rumsfeld, today, warned that there are more pictures and video footage that show the same kind of abuse. Here's a written preview of what's to come. At it's worst, the intelligence units of the military practice "rendering," whereby suspects are turned over to foreign intelligence units (Egyptian, Syrian, etc.) and tortured for information. The U.S. doesn't beat the shit out of these guys, it outsources.
2. I've seen three kinds of right-wing defense so far. a) This-is-really-not-a-big-deal defense (Rush Limbaugh, comparing the actions in the photos to frat hazing, and asking, "haven't you ever heard of blowing off steam?" Hey Rush, I hope you also end up naked and tied to a leash when they haul your fat ass off to jail. b) What Saddam/Arab governments/Stalin did was worse-defense (various apologists). I shit you not. Stalin. I'm glad to see this country is setting the bar so high. This kind of irrelevence just makes the hole even deeper. Mostly though, it just makes me sick. c) This-is-bad-but-CBS-shouldn't-have-shown-these-pictures-in-the-first-place-by-damn-defense (Jonah Goldberg) Excuse me? Why, because it makes you look like a horse's ass? A horse's ass that abets and wants to cover up torture? Look, don't say you think it's bad but that we would all be better off if the photographs never surfaced. The photographs are the only reason this story is getting any play at all. Witness accounts and stories don't cut it in this illiterate nation we live in. So stop talking out both sides of your mouth. This line, however, simply takes it. "Of course, CBS had every right to do what it did. But that's irrelevant. Nobody's suggesting the government should have stopped them. I'm suggesting that CBS should have stopped itself. Now we'll all have to live with the consequences - and some of us will die from them." Maybe. But if some of 'us' (Americans I presume? I know he's not writing about Iraqis) die from this, it won't be because CBS showed these photos. It will be because of people like Goldberg who gleefully cheered on this illegal war in the first place.
Media Matters has a nice little sampling of various conservative excuses and targets who are the real culprits behind this mess. We've got women in the military (Ann Coulter, Linda Chavez, Diana West), feminists (George Neumyr, The American Spectator), and of course, Muslims, (Cal Thomas, assorted other racists. Go check it out. It's also worth noting that the one female soldier pictured so far seems to getting more than her share of photo-time (and related public-flogging).
3. Sorry, Don Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. At least, that's my opinion. I'm less sure of this as I write this than I was this morning, but it would be worse for the administration to take the dagger out than to leave it in at this point. Firing Rumsfeld would be a public admission that the wheels have come off the bus. Of course, a lot of us know that the wheels came off the bus a long time ago, along with the headlights, the windows, and that little red stop sign that the driver with three fingers on his right hand can pull out. Then the bus was lit on fire and pissed on. But Bush and Karl Rove have wedded themselves to "staying the course" in Iraq. Axing Rumsfeld would make even the most hyper-patriotic chest-beaters pause and examine just how bad things have gotten on the ground. Rumsfeld also creates a convenient buffer of blame for the preznit. Note the not-so-subtle leak of Chimpy McSmirkster dressing down his defense secretary. No, Bush bears as much responsibilitiy for what happened at the prision as Rumsfeld. Don't believe the hype. But this way, with Rummy apologizing and then slinking into the background for a while, when no torture pictures emerge next month and only 100 U.S. servicemen are killed, jackasses like Bill Safire can write about how "we've really turned the corner now." Uh-huh.
Posted by mike at May 7, 2004 07:55 PMDemocrats don't "have their act together" simply because wartime presidents don't lose. They're walking the line between patriotism and pointing out the mistakes concerning the Iraqi war effort. Good luck on that one.
More disturbing, however, is the identity theft being perpetuated by "CC". If you persist in using my initials to identify yourself, the least you can do is clarify just who exactly you are. Reveal yourself!
Posted by: Cam on May 13, 2004 03:33 PMCam, my apologies for having taken your identity - hardly my intention. But more importantly, I don't really disagree with you that it is more difficult to challenge a wartime president - however there is always the Churchill example to consider. Moreover, the cracks in the planning of this war are quite large and this country has too many questionable relationships with several countries which shall remain nameless. I think if the democrats had not sent in the b-team this year (maybe Hillary instead) they'd probably have a better shot at the game.
As to Mike's response, I don't think the UN has any more credibility in Iraq than the U.S. Firstly, there seems to be no relunctance to attack them, as the tragic death of Sergio Viera de Mello and other U.N. personnel indicates. And remember when that happened, the U.N. abandoned ship.
What's more, remember Kofi Annan was the guy who said the U.N. could do "business" w/ Saddam sometime back in 1998? I highly doubt the Kurds and Shias have forgotten that. There are many other examples of times when the U.N. sold ordinary Iraqis out to Saddam's henchman (also don't forget the Oil-for-food scandal). If need be, I'll be happy to list them.
If we need to clean our house, so does the U.N. End of story. I'm not sure why you have so much faith in this institution's abilities.
Posted by: CC on May 14, 2004 04:04 PMCC,
You're flat out delusional if you think the UN is as hated as the US in Iraq. Do you think all you have to do is yell "oil for food scandal" to whip up some anti-UN sentiment? They may work on Sean Hannity's show, but not with me. The UN, read, "other countries, preferably a lot of Muslim ones," will have far more credibility in Iraw than this country will ever dream of. Kofi Annan is as hated as George Bush? Give me a break.
And don't get all self-righteous huffing about Annan's supposed "business" quote. The United States has done business, and continues to do business, with some of the evilest regimes on the planet. Sometimes it works like that.
Posted by: Mike on May 17, 2004 01:47 PMVery Well said
Posted by: Jagrato Roy on May 25, 2004 01:30 AM