« blog semantics | Main | One person's happy is another person's sad »

Random Thoughts on Abu Ghraib (or: What's at Stake)

If there are people who are not horrified and outraged by the Abu Ghraib stories, I do not know them. Nor do I want to. I expect that every American should right now be feeling a bit of shame or embarassment to go along with their anger and shock. Abu Ghraib can and will be compared to many things. Some will misguidedly - or, in Limbaugh's case, ignorantly - compare it to frat house stunts. I see that as a partisan reach to justify something that deserves no justification. Some are comparing Abu Ghraib to Nazi Germany, its guards to Hitler and his henchmen. Hitler marched Jews off to concentration camps, where they were killed because of who they were. Killed. By the thousands. At least 700,000 were killed in Treblinka alone, and that was just one of several death camps. I'd say the comparisons to Nazis and Hitler are not only off base, but a blatant attempt to further demonize America and its troops. Some are comparing Abu Ghraib to My Lai. In My Lai, over 500 unarmed men, women and children were intentionally massacred. The soldiers went into a village and systematically killed anyone that was standing, including babies and praying women. Abu Ghraib is not My Lai. I am not defending the soldiers of Abu Ghraib here. I am not the one comparing the atrocities. I just want to point out why your comparisons are baseless. Now, let's put to rest all the talk of the notion that somehow all of our troops are guilty, all of our troops are torturers, rapists and potential child killers that don't care about the people they are supposed to be freeing. Sgt. Stryker does not seem to fit into that mold. What about Spc. Joe Darby, who blew the whistle on all the abuse? Not LtCol. McNease, who recently spread some Spirit of America love around Fallujah. Or Chief Wiggles, who has done so much for the Iraqi people. There's Smash, a great defender of freedom and denouncer of prisoner abuse. Try also BlackFive, Greyhawk or Sgt. Hook. For every soldier who deserves a court martial, you will find a thousand soldiers who deserve a medal. Which ones do you want to concentrate on? Which soldiers will your favorite papers/news channels give the most attention to? The few or the proud? Let's move on to President Bush, our Commander in Chief. He is rightly pissed off at the stories coming out of Abu Ghraib. How you view his anger depends on where you sit. I see it as genuine anger, combined with a genuine sadness over this whole incident. I see his emotions not as reactions to the reactions but as reactions to the acts. There is a difference. The left sees Bush's anger as something sinister. If he is mad, he's only mad that the pictures got out. He's only mad that the guards got caught. He's only mad because this might make him lose the election. It seems that the left has so demonized Bush they can no longer see him as having any human qualities. In fact, when Bush comforted the daughter of a victim of 9/11 last week, the left had a field day trying to twist the sentimetnal moment into something sinister. So I suppose it's really not surprising when they doubt Bush's anger towards the Abu Ghraib guards. I am however, surprised at Kerry's response. The quickness with which he and his campaign staff politicized this awful story was astounding. They jumped on this as if they had found the magix elixer that would turn Kerry from a contender to a president. I wonder how many Kerry staffers and supporters are secretly rubbing their hands in glee over the Abu Ghraib scandal? You don't think it's likely? Oh, don't go and give me that how dare you. You, the people who think that Bush giving someone a hug is a political manuever. Here's how to tell the difference between moderates (be they Republican or Democrat or otherwise) and those on the fringes of everything: The left fringe people are dancing in the streets, raising their arms in jubilation because this whole torture scandal means bigger numbers for Kerry. They are calling for impeachment and calling for heads rather than trying to find a way to fix this thing or punish the actual perpetrators, who are, last I checked, adults and responsible for their own actions. Well, what do you expect from the same group of people who think it's McDonald's fault that people are fat? They are comparing Bush to Hitler and Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz and using the word massacre wontonly. Above all, Abu Ghraib is a victory for them. Even though they won't come out and say it, it's in their words and phrases. The right fringe are justifying Abu Ghraib. They compare the prison with that of Saddam's prisons. They compare it to frat parties and juvenile stunts. They make claims of stress and poor guidance. They dismiss the use of the word torture and make light of the situation by cracking bad jokes about Iraqi prisoners. Some even cheer the abuse. They also see this as a loss; not a loss for America's fight to maintain it's good name, not as a loss for Iraqi dignity and American pride, not as a loss for the war we are waging against evil in the Middle East; no, they see it as a November loss. If you look at Abu Ghraib and cannot see it any other terms but what it means for November, then you do not understand what the war is about. You do not understand that this war, and this scandal, will reach far beyond your own backyard. I am sorry for the Iraqis that suffered under the hands of American soldiers. I look at those pictures and I want to cry. Humiliation is a terrible weapon to wield. It has a bigger impact on a person than a knife cut or bullet wound. And the humiliation of these Iraqis will have a much bigger impact on America and the war in Iraq - even the war to save ourselves - than you think. As a nation, we are taking responsibility for our actions. That is a good thing. Yet for some, it is not enough. Nothing short of an impeachment - or maybe a public beheading of Rumsfeld - will be enough. I don't understand the mind set of people who put the needs and wants of their own political agenda above that of country. Your first debt is to your country. The country that gives you freedom, the country that lets you say what you want, when you want, the country that allows you to break into a Senate hearing and shout down the Secretary of Defense and you live to tell about it, the country where you live, work, play and protest - that country deserves your respect if for no other reason than the rights you have to not respect it. The right thing to do right now is obvious. The wrong to to do is this: give the enemy ammunition. By making this a partisan story - and I'm talking to both the Rushes and the Ralls out there - you are doing a great disservice to the country that harbors you. By making this war about nothing but Abu Ghraib, all day, all night - and I'm talking to both the Reuters and Fox people and everyone in between - you are doing a great disservice to the great many soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who want nothing more than to give freedom to an oppressed people. Make no mistake, our nation is in a crisis right now. Our standing with the Arab community and, within that, our standing with radical, jihad crazed Muslims is at stake. We need to find some common ground or we will fail in this crisis. Failure means more terrorism, more death. Failure means a halt to the push for world peace. Failure in this crisis, right here, right now, does not bode well for our future. When a nation is in crisis, it's people need to come together. Unfortunately, we have gone way past the point where that is possible now. But we need to find something, anything to agree on here, something that shows the rest of the world that we can act in concert, we can pull together for the sake of our country because if we don't, it certainly looks like we don't respect America and how can we expect our enemies to respect us when we are constantly making a mockery of ourselves? The common ground is this: Abu Ghraib is a blight on this war. We must punish those responsible and by that I mean those that held the weapons, those that uttered the commands, those that took the pictures, those that were in the pictures. We must roundly denounce the actions of a few yet praise the actions of many at the same time. We must not call for heads to roll, we must not spit in the face of our president while a war wages and while our enemies are gathering force against us, using Abu Ghraib as another notch in their hate America suicide belt. Yes, I know. I'm grasping at straws and talking out of my ass and living in a dream world. But remember, I'm not asking liberals to vote for Bush. I'm not asking Freepers to kiss a liberal on the mouth. I don't want you stop writing about how much you hate Ann Coulter or how much you hate Ted Rall (obviously, aimed at self). America affords us the opportunity to do that and not really incur any damage from it. But the subject of Abu Ghraib - it's different. I'm asking that we take a long, hard look at what's at stake here and act appropriately. Now, if I could just figure out what that appropriate action should be. Related: Day by Day by Chris Muir

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Random Thoughts on Abu Ghraib (or: What's at Stake):

» THOUGHTS ON ABU GHRAIB from Heretical Ideas
Michele has some thoughts on Abu Ghraib that are well worth the time to peruse.I don't understand the mind set of people who put the needs and wants of their own political agenda above that of country. Your first debt... [Read More]

» To Read List from Chief Wiggles
Been doing a little surfing and so will leave you with some of my "must read" of the day. On the ongoing prison problem in Iraq. Michele has a wonderful post. So does John Moore. Finally, from someone who has... [Read More]

» Abu Ghraib v. Delta House from HOG ON ICE
Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other Michele has a good post on the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle. In it she... [Read More]

» Abu Ghraib v. Delta House from HOG ON ICE
Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other Michele has a good post on the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle. In it she... [Read More]

» Abu Ghraib v. Delta House from HOG ON ICE
Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other Michele has a good post on the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle. In it she... [Read More]

» Abu Ghraib v. Delta House from HOG ON ICE
Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other Michele has a good post on the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle. In it she... [Read More]

» Abu Ghraib v. Delta House from HOG ON ICE
Six of One, Half-Dozen of the Other Michele has a good post on the Abu Ghraib kerfuffle. In it she... [Read More]

» On Abu Ghraib from Nobody asked me, but...
Michele once again earns a 'must read' notation, leaving me to wonder why she isn't PAID to write. Just as 'Carl from Oyster Bay', a one time denizen of talk radio, rode his way to become the prominent commentator Carl Limbacher Jr. , I predict great t... [Read More]

» Enough Already! from The Trommetter Times
Up until now I've been virtually silent about the goings on inside the Abu Gharib prison. I'm only going to... [Read More]

» I can't watch anymore right now from She Who Will Be Obeyed!
Go read Michele. She is far more eloquent and far more resourceful than I could ever be. Everything she states about 9/11, Iraq, crazy ass lefties, torture, humiliation and beheadings is correct as far as I am concerned. My heart... [Read More]

» No Respect from Andrew Olmsted dot com
You know, I'm well aware (indeed, painfully aware) that I'm far from being a big-name blogger. But you'd think I could at least get the occasional mention when military bloggers are mentioned. Hell, I've been writing for this site for... [Read More]

Comments

Nice little "pox on all your houses" post, but, really. Is there some offsetting cheering section for the hand-rubbers?

Humiliation is a terrible weapon to wield.

So true, Michele. The cuts are deep, and although they may scar over, the wounds will fester - and the resulting pain can affect the victim for years.

I know. I lived with someone who used humiliation with devastasting precision.

I hope Bush acts on his anger and does some well-needed housecleaning now. It needs to be done.

Michele,

Again, you write an impassioned and excellent column. And yes, this is where the "but" comes in.

When did Rush (who, admittedly, I do not listen to) become "the" official Republican Party spokesman? Who elected/appointed him? Now as totally off-base and frankly wrong his comments as I've seen reported are, please point me to a Republican official who has said the things that Democrat officials (including Biden and Kerry) from the otherside of the aisle. Good Lord, about the only Democrat lately I've seen with any remaining moral cache is Joe Lieberman! And he is getting savaged by the Left for his measured and succinct statements.

This has completely become a political football for the Left and majority of Democrat officials. Everything I've read, from Biden's weird call for God Himself to be fired, to the hyperbolic histrionics of Teddy Kennedy, there is absolutely nothing from the Right that I've seen that compares. Did the Army engage in a coverup? Or are they acting in accord to the UCMJ? Has any Republican or conservative condemned the investigatory process and called for the immediate cessation of pursuit of holding the soldiers accountable for their abuses?

And I will challenge you on the "humilation is worse than bullet" meme. It was horrendous abuse, it was against all manner of military rules, it needs to dealt with swiftly and completely, but it was not torture. I'm sure Danny Pearl's family would rather have seen pictures of him naked than watching his throat slit. If physical abuse comes to light (as in the accusations of slapping or beating) that is torture. I resist this attempt to dilute the word of "torture" as how politics diluted the word "rape" years ago.

Certainly, let's condemn the hyperbole and partisanship from either side. But let's not get into some sort of domestic moral equivalency thing here ... not when Republican officials are supporting the UCMJ procedures and Democrat officials are smearing the military.

Darleen, if you read again you will see that I was referring to Rush as the left/right line equivalent of Ted Rall. This was not addressed to mainstream Republicans, Democrats or moderates of any stripe. I think I made that pretty clear.

Speaking as a fan, Rush isn't as far out, and definitely not as corrosively hateful, as Ted Rall -- overall, that comparision is simply not fair.

But I will agree that he's completely wrong and out to lunch on this particular issue.

Better question: when did Rush Limbaugh become "fringe"?
This sounds a little like someone trying too hard to impress the other side with her ability to be oh-so-critical of one of the brightest stars of the conservative movement, just to show how we can come down on our own guys.

Better question: when did Rush Limbaugh become "fringe"?
This sounds a little like someone trying too hard to impress the other side with her ability to be oh-so-critical of one of the brightest stars of the conservative movement, just to show how we can come down on one of our own guys who gets out of line in their eyes.

Damn it all. Too quick to press post the first time.

To add:

Perhaps I'm way past jaded, but the Abu Ghraib situation just doesn't instill this sense of utter shame in me like it is others. I'm not overjoyed that it happened, but I'm also not eager to show contrition for the idiocy of a couple of yahoos with a digital camera. I'm not to blame for it. Neither are any of you. And who can measure the good these instances of hard interrogation have done in saved American lives?

I just can't muster the compassion to care for the Iraqis who put themselves behind those walls in the first place.

I see that link that goes to "World O' Crap." Apt description of the joint's contents.

Oh, that's not what they mean? Oops!

What a blogroll over there with all of those big name lefties. And they hate Limbaugh? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Very nice article, well written, well balanced. My personal opinion is that we have a great opportunity to show Iraqi's how a democratic society responds to abuses within its system. I think the US should make every effort to publicize within Iraq the trial and conviction of these American miscreants. Then they might see the difference between us and Sadam.

I'm with Matthew. I think the abuse was bad and the perpetrators should be punished. I save horror and disgust, though, for real torture, genocide, massacres, etc... I'm pissed off that these soldiers used such bad judgement at a time when we need to be setting a good example.

One major problem that has apparently not been addressed is the problem of prison guards. It has been shown over and over that prison guards almost universally become abusive. The famous Princeton experiment showed it in a particularly stark fashion. We should be rotating prison guard duty more frequently. If we leave people in the prison guard role for long enough, abuse WILL happen. And it will happen in the majority of cases. The fact that the prisoners are often terrorists will only make it worse.

Hopefully the military will address this problem or we will see more abuse in the future.

Bolie IV

Well said, Michele. Making this into a huge political issue endangers the troops on the ground and sends the wrong message to our enemies.

The soldiers involved were wrong, wrong, wrong. Their actions do not reflect the behavior of the majority of the troops.

Meaningful dialogue, not hatred endlessly spewed. Please. For the country's sake.

I compared Karpinski to Calley because they both presided over pointless atrocities committed by US troops, but you are obviously right to point out that Calley was in a completely different league.

As for Limbaugh comparing what happened to "frat-house stunts," I think that's appropriate. Fraternity hazing is homoerotic sexual sadism committed by men who can't bear to admit their own homosexuality. And the things that happened at Abu Ghraib are a whole lot like the things that happen in frat houses.

Frat hazing are simply acts of repressed homosexuals? Let's not play armchair pop-psychologist here.

Overall I agree with the point of this post but I do have a few exceptions:

When Rush Limbaugh called the humilatiation of the prsioners 'frat stunts', and at the time the level abuse involved naked pyramids and hooded thugs, he was correct. If you humiliate a few bad guys and that leads to a few dozen others to talk, that is the correct way to use intimidation, especially in war.

I do not know what Rush would say about the alleged photos of sodomy, but I would state that would cross the line. Unless -- unless we're talking about the kind of prisoners who would just as soon stand behind an innocent woman or child and fire at US troops. Humilation, even as perverse as this sounds, is too good for those fiends.

Let the UCMJ system take its course. That is the proper body to decide

And let us cease this rant to fire Secy Rumsfeld. This whole ordeal was covered in the press months ago, sans photos. If President Bush can get passed the mistake of him not being properly briefed on the level of the abuse, then we can as well.

After all, if anyone ought to have been in damage control for November, it would be the President himself. The fact that he hasn't fired/'asked to step down' Secy Rumsfeld over this matter is evidence that the greater good (Iraq and National Security) is more important to him than his re-election.

http://digitalwarfighter.com/

Never mind that Limbaugh said this stuff when he had only seen a handful of pictures... there were worse pictures to come later and he's made it clear he totally condemns this, especially after seeing more. The idea that he at all compares to Ted Rall, who slammed the entire US military and a dead soldier, is preposterous.

"[The left] are calling for impeachment and calling for heads rather than trying to find a way to fix this thing or punish the actual perpetrators, who are, last I checked, adults and responsible for their own actions."

Here's a salient quote:

"On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war."

What leftie/moonbat/streetdancing/enemy-coddling publication printed this scurrilous traitorous tripe?

The Army Times.

Nice post, as usual, Michele.

I am so sick of the "All Iraqi Prison Scandal, All the Time" mentality of the majority of the news media. Yes, it was/is bad. Yes, the entire chain of command is upset/sickened/pissed off about it.

Bad things happen in war. You try to avoid them-or you try to fix them. We did a poor job of avoiding this (we will find out why), so we are fixing, or to some degree have already fixed, this.

Yes, it's good that the Arab world sees that we deal with this in a thorough and open manner. But.

The constant coverage of this, along with the hyperbolic statements by Kennedy, Biden, and company serve what purpose? To demoralize the military and embarrass this administration?

Great way to win a war.

Darleen, if you read again you will see that I was referring to Rush as the left/right line equivalent of Ted Rall. This was not addressed to mainstream Republicans, Democrats or moderates of any stripe. I think I made that pretty clear.

It looks to me that there's a lot of criticism of Kerry and his supporters in this post--suggesting they're actually happy about the prison abuse scandal. Since Kerry is the (soon-to-be) nominee of the Democratic Party, he's mainstream by definition.

I'm not sure where all these lefties are who are "dancing in the streets" about Abu Ghraib (and trust me when I say that the "left fringe" doesn't support Kerry anymore than it supported Gore), but if they exist somewhere other than your imagination, I'll be sure to denounce them.

The relative significance of Rush Limbaugh to the right (most popular talk show host in America) and Ted Rall to the left (obscure cartoonist who gets more attention from conservatives than from liberals) is telling, I think.

I challenge the 'significance' of Rush Limbaugh. On one hand, he's denounced by critics as merely 'a talk show host' or (egads!) 'an entertainer'... then his name is mentioned in White House Press Conferences, bestowing signficance and merit.

My much-better-half was watching the WH press briefing the other day when a reporter kept asking Scott McClellan (apology for probable misspelling) about Mr. Limbaugh's comments. She told said the best response Mr. McClellan could have given was to ask the reporter if he should also consider the opinions voiced on 'The View' that same morning, since their coffee-clotch is as political as anythign Rush speaks about.

So which is he? Mere entertainer or part of the Bush Administration?

Perhaps I'll start this thread on my own.

jasond -- one, the Army Times is not the official house organ of the US Army. Their opinions are those of private individuals.

Two -- Rumsfeld has been massively unpopular with many of the brass for years... hell, ever since he was Secretary of Defense the FIRST time. His entire career has been based on breaking up the entrenched bureaucracy of the brass and re-organizing the armed forces his way, and that's made him an assload of enemies.

Or, IOW -- "Some officers in the Army and/or retired officers from the Army don't like Rumsfeld. Whoop-te-fraggin-do, I'll alert the effin' media."

Hey it isnt all bad. Republicans now have their tag line when they lost the election in November. "Blame the Media"

Chuck, I'm aware of who runs the Army Times. My point was to refute Michele's insistence that it's "the Left" who is calling for impeachment and removal. Whatever you wanna call the AT, "Left" don't quite do it.

If you want me to believe that the AT's editorial is merely payback for Rumsfeld's heroic bureacracy-busting ways, I think that's an awfully thin and unsubstantiated argument.

One more screaming Lefty speaks:

"The first axiom is: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable."

- George Will, May 10

"I wonder how many Kerry staffers and supporters are secretly rubbing their hands in glee over the Abu Ghraib scandal?"

This is so offensive, I can barely bring myself to believe that you wrote it. Suppose you replace "Kerry" with "Bush" and "Abu Ghraib scandal" with "9/11 attacks" ... you'd get a standard DU post.

The right sees Kerry's anger as something sinister. If he's mad, it must really be a coldly calculated election strategy to make Bush's numbers fall. It couldn't possibly be because of all the appologists that are trying to make this go away (from the minor point of insisting that it be called "abuse" but not "torture," to the middle of the road "extingencies of war", to the extreme right "just frat boy fun"). It couldn't possibly be because both the senate and house questioned Rumsfeld for hours and got less details than you can pick up in 5 minutes with the current issue of the New Yorker. It couldn't possibly be the simplest reason of all, because it's going to make this war longer, harder, and get more of out troops killed. It seems that the right has so demonized Kerry they can no longer see him as having any human qualities.

Besides this, I agree with most everything else you said. ;)

I wonder how symptomatic the Iraqi prisoner abuse is of a great problem in our society? That is, all prisoners are no longer deserving of basic human rights, they deserve severe punishment, and the purpose of the criminal justice and prison systems is to exact vengance on people?

The constant coverage of this, along with the hyperbolic statements by Kennedy, Biden, and company serve what purpose? To demoralize the military and embarrass this administration?

Great way to win a war.

Why haven’t any Kerry supporters answered this question? It’s a good one.

Speaking of media bias, David Brock, believes that the media is entirely biased in favor of the right wing. He says:

“There should be no doubt that the right-wing media's wildings of 1993 -- which led to Clinton's impeachment four years later -- will be replayed over and over again until its capacities to spread filth are somehow eradicated.”

Fox news and Rush aren’t perfect, but that statement sounds fairly extreme.

Do Kerry supporters agree with this?

If so, how should the GOP’s ‘capacities to spread filth’ be ‘eradicated?’

Investigations are ongoing, charges have been made, suspects arrested and trials are scheduled. Thjere is no one attempting a cover-up. Why is this still an issue?

Because somebody wants heads to roll.

Whose heads? Why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield, of course.

And who wants those heads to roll? The left, by and large. And this is different from how they felt prior to the abuse investigation coming to light, how?

There are problems with this. The elected officials on the left who are using this as a means of furthering their aganda are not mirrored by elected officials on the right who are downplaying it. Elected officials on the left have, visilbly, stridently politicised this. Those on the right have not.

"My point was to refute Michele's insistence that it's "the Left" who is calling for impeachment and removal. Whatever you wanna call the AT, "Left" don't quite do it."

Nice strawman. There was no insistence and the mention was made of the fringe left not the left in general. Michele wasn't saying just the left was calling for heads. You even changed the original quote.

Then you took George Will out of context from his recent where he discusses the pros and cons of Rumsfeld resigning. His column is a staunch defense of the man while recognizing the PR reality. His is exactly the discussion Michele is referring to about finding the solution rather than reflexively calling for the head of those on the other side of the political aisle.

But you knew that already.

The left sees Bush's anger as something sinister. If he is mad, he's only mad that the pictures got out. He's only mad that the guards got caught. He's only mad because this might make him lose the election. It seems that the left has so demonized Bush they can no longer see him as having any human qualities…. I wonder how many Kerry staffers and supporters are secretly rubbing their hands in glee over the Abu Ghraib scandal? You don't think it's likely?

Oh, hey, look at that: a double standard. Bush's anger over Abu Ghraib is genuine, but "the left" whoever they are, thinks is a political ploy. Kerry's anger is a political ploy, and "the left" whoever they are, are too dense to see it. How convenient.

If you look at Abu Ghraib and cannot see it any other terms but what it means for November, then you do not understand what the war is about. You do not understand that this war, and this scandal, will reach far beyond your own backyard.

On the contrary: maybe Kerry and many others who stand in opposition to the Bush administration on this issue can see that the consequences of this scandal will reach far beyond our own back yard, which is why they're not entirely satisfied with using backyard rules (UCMJ) to settle the matter. In fact, I would submit to you that it is precisely the reason that many people are demanding Rusmfeld's resignation; the consequences of this scandal are likely to require a significant restructuring of our policy goals in Iraq and the methods we use to achieve them. Ultimately, it may (emphasis on "may") necessitate a complete U.S. withdrawal from the region. And I do not say that as someone who advocates early withdrawal; I think Iraq needs external logistical support and a foreign military presence to maintain order and stability during the transition period to independence. But this torture incident is very nearly the single most destructive set-back I could have imagined for a successful U.S. occupation of Iraq.

If the United States put Jeremy Sivits and every other person directly involved in this case in front of a firing squad it might-- might --undo some of the damage that was done by this scandal. I wouldn't recommend that, and we're not going to do it in any case. But asking for Don Rumsfeld's resignation is a close second as a damage control option. Personally, I'm inclined to think that won't work either. But if it doesn't, we will have to reevaluate our strategy and goals in Iraq.

I don't understand the mind set of people who put the needs and wants of their own political agenda above that of country. Your first debt is to your country.

This is what I don't get.

I look at this situation, I'm not terribly surprised that it happened. As I said before, this kind of shit happens in wars. But I'm also not naïve enough to think that means there won't be extreme consequences, or that those consequences can be offset by a few courts martial. While you're sitting here copping this rational, "these men will go to trial and if they're found guilty they will receive reasonable punishments," attitude, images of this incident are being spread around the Middle East like atomic napalm. I mean for god's sake, Michele— there's a fucking photograph of a white female American soldier humiliating a naked Arab male in a hood. You can rattle on about how the Arab world should react to that until you're blue in the face. How they should be rational, or how it shouldn't make any difference that the soldier's a woman. But every culture has its buttons and that photo pushes all the wrong buttons in Arab culture.

Remember that Rodney King video? Buttons. And if the courts had hung those fucking cops up by their thumbs, it might have stopped the L.A. riots and saved a lot of lives.

So maybe, just maybe, Kerry looks at those photos and he sees Iraq exploding like Los Angeles— but with bombs, RPGs, and assault rifles. Maybe he considers the enormity of what that's going to cost in human lives, human suffering and misery, and he thinks, "Boy, we need to do whatever we can to make sure that doesn't happen." So he asks for Rumsfeld's resignation.

And I'll even give you this: that may be giving Kerry too much credit. But that doesn't mean he's wrong.

You look at this, you see politics. I look at this, I see Los Angeles. And as far as putting your country first: minimizing the impact from this torture scandal should be the highest priority for the Bush administration. And if that means Donald Rumsfeld has to commit seppuku on national television then that's what it means. Otherwise it's entirely possible that a lot of American soldiers are going to die needlessly in the firestorm that builds out of this. And is Rumsfeld's career more important than the lives of those soldiers? Would him stepping down save more lives than his competence, whatever it may be, as Secretary of Defense? I think it very well may.

When a nation is in crisis, it's people need to come together. Unfortunately, we have gone way past the point where that is possible now. But we need to find something, anything to agree on here, something that shows the rest of the world that we can act in concert, we can pull together for the sake of our country because if we don't, it certainly looks like we don't respect America and how can we expect our enemies to respect us when we are constantly making a mockery of ourselves?

Michele, why is it that your response to every American crisis seems to boil down to, "Get in line and be quiet! The other team is watching!" American political process is about debate and friction and messy disorder constantly striving for consensus. The more important the outcome of a given decision, the more Americans are obligated to make their views on the matter known. There are very few decisions more important than how America prosecutes a war. This is exactly the wrong time to be silent. And if the President is screwing the war effort up, which many people think he is, it's their duty—that "first duty to their country" you were talking about earlier —to vote him out of office. And guess what: it's impossible to vote someone out of office if you're not allowed to criticize their performance.

I am absolutely confounded by your continued insistence that all criticisms of Bush and his administration are "merely" political, or, worse yet, that they are somehow unpatriotic. The United States is we, the people. Not some guy in a big house in Washington D.C. We're the country. He's just the President. When we fail to criticize his performance of his duties, we abandon our allegiance to each other: and in the United States, that means abandoning our allegiance to our country. Period.

The common ground is this: Abu Ghraib is a blight on this war. We must punish those responsible and by that I mean those that held the weapons, those … (snip) while a war wages and while our enemies are gathering force against us, using Abu Ghraib as another notch in their hate America suicide belt.

Abu Ghraib is more than a blight on this war: it's the propaganda equivalent of a thermonuclear weapon. And this war is all about propaganda—there's no doubt that the U.S. military could kill every single person in Iraq if we wanted to. Military superiority is not in dispute here. This is a hearts-and-minds war, and there is very little that could have been more destructive to a hearts-and-minds campaign than the pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib. And it's all well and good to talk about limiting responsibility for this debacle to those who pulled the metaphorical trigger, but if that doesn't satisfy the Iraqis (and there's every reason to think it won't), then the Bush administration may very well be forced to reevaluate their mission priorities in Iraq. I, for one, am not confident of the Bush administration's ability or inclination to change mission priorities while an operation is still in play. In fact, Bush's record while in office leads me to conclude that he would rather be boiled in oil than admit something has gone wrong and we'll have to back down off a policy.

Those two factors— the likelihood of a massive violent backlash in response to the Abu Ghraib scandal and the odds against Bush being willing to change ground tactics in Iraq in response to such a backlash —lead me to believe that a lot of U.S. soldiers may die over this, and that U.S. goals in the occupation of Iraq will be severely impeded.

The fact that all of this happened on George Bush's watch leads me to hold him, to some degree, responsible for it. And frankly I'm amazed and horrified that you would suggest otherwise. Holding Bush responsible for this mess is not merely political; it's one step in the process of correcting the damage caused by this scandal. That's my priority; my loyalty to the nation. To we, the people. Not to some guy in a big house in Washington D.C. Like the CEO of a company, George Bush is just a guy doing a job. And he is not, in my opinion, doing a very good job. His handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal (not merely the fact that it happened, but his actual handling of it) has served to reinforce that opinion on my part.

Kerry has every right to call attention to that. Indeed: it may be fairly said that he has a responsibility to do so.

Speaking of heads rolling...

Video Posted on Islamic Militant Web Site Appears to Show Beheading of an American POW --If true, I do believe this is a violation of the Geneva convention and human rights. But don't hold your breath for an apology.

which led to Clinton's impeachment four years later

Huh. So it was the media's fault....that's the first time I've heard that. Funny - I've been laboring under the misconception that Clinton was responsible for his actions.

Well. There I go again.

"Nice strawman. There was no insistence and the mention was made of the fringe left not the left in general. Michele wasn't saying just the left was calling for heads. You even changed the original quote."

I did not "change" the quote, I inserted brackets around the words "the left" because it made it clear who "they" were in my pullquote. It's kind of a writerly technique, you see, not a smear tactic. But you knew that.

Michele "insists" all kinds of stuff about the left every day. Today was no different.

I certainly didn't read Will's column as some kind of "pros/cons" defense of Rumsfeld at all, nor did I read him as making a judgment based on "PR". Please point that part out for me, if you would. I read it as a piece wherein he has the faith that Rumsfeld will do "the honorable thing". Here, read this:

"This nation has always needed an ethic about the resignation of public officials. Such an ethic cannot be codified. It must grow in controlling power from precedent to precedent, as an unwritten common law, distilled from the behavior of uncommonly honorable men and women who understand the stakes. A nation, especially one doing the business of empire, needs high officials to be highly attentive to what is done in their departments -- attentive far down the chain of command, as though their very jobs depended on it.

Finally, the second axiom. It is from Charles de Gaulle: The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

Is that the "PR" part? Aw heck, read the whole thing. You tell me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16108-2004May10.html

Mary - I'm not exactly a Kerry supporter, but I'll answer it for you.

"The constant coverage of this, along with the hyperbolic statements by Kennedy, Biden, and company serve what purpose?"

1) The constant coverage: this is how the media works, it serves the purpose of allowing them to be lazy because they don't have to create any new material.

2) The hyperbolic statements: I'd say it's personal ego gratification. By making loud statements they get a bigger share of the coverage than people who make more moderate statements.

David Brock does not believe "the media is entirely biased in favor of the right wing." There is, however, a segment of the media which is entirely biased in favor of the right wing. David Brock seems to believe that exposing right wing lies will prevent the "filth." It's actually a laudable goal, although I wish they'd do the left media too.

Trish - "Huh. So it was the media's fault....that's the first time I've heard that. Funny - I've been laboring under the misconception that Clinton was responsible for his actions."

No, you've been laboring under the misconception that sex and/or an irrelevant statement in civil court is an impeachable offense. So then, I suppose you could say that the republicans in the house were responsible for their action of impeaching the president. This is direct responsibility, which is not the only form of responsibility. If I hired an assassin to kill someone and he does, the assassin is not considered the only one responsible for the killing.

David Brock does not believe "the media is entirely biased in favor of the right wing"

In his own words

The right-wing drive for media power must also be understood as an overturning of the First Amendment, which posits that good information will drive out bad information given diversity in the marketplace of ideas. As I will show, the Right's premeditated undermining of the media as a public trust in favor of crass commercial values, its coordinated attacks on noncommercial media, and the Republican-led drive for greater consolidation of media ownership have all but wiped out liberal and left-wing views and voices in entire sectors of the American media. Perhaps most ominous, right-wing verbal brownshirts of late have used their mighty media platforms to chill the free speech of their political adversaries and to neuter aggressive journalistic fact-finding that threatens Republican power."

My view is that unchecked right-wing media power means that in the United States today, no issue can be honestly debated and no election can be fairly decided

Is this how he exposes right wing lies?

If he and his fans believe that the GOP and their ‘right-wing verbal brownshirts’ are a threat to the First Amendment, debate and fair elections, I have to wonder about how they plan to eradicate this filth.

Mary - how about you look at exactly what he's doing now. He's got an organization that's trying to expose right wing lies (just listen to Limbaugh rant about him). It would be a lot better if he'd do Ted Rall too, naturally, but again, the idea is to expose lies to the truth.

"I did not "change" the quote, I inserted brackets around the words "the left" because it made it clear who "they" were in my pullquote. It's kind of a writerly technique, you see, not a smear tactic. But you knew that."

"They" is directly after "fringe left people". You changed the quote and are now lying about it.

"Michele "insists" all kinds of stuff about the left every day. Today was no different."

Translation: I can't back up my original statement.

"I certainly didn't read Will's column as some kind of "pros/cons" defense of Rumsfeld at all, nor did I read him as making a judgment based on "PR"."

Why bother? You already have your mind made and are seeking to back it by lying.

"Are the nation's efforts in the deepening global war — the world is more menacing than it was a year ago — helped or hindered by Rumsfeld's continuation as the appointed American most conspicuously identified with the conduct of the war?"

Removal of the most conspicuously identified sounds like a PR move does it not? That Will ultimately argues for Rumsfeld to step down after laying out the case and its impacts which supports my original contention dealing with the piece:

"His is exactly the discussion Michele is referring to about finding the solution rather than reflexively calling for the head of those on the other side of the political aisle."

Soli - I don't listen to Limbaugh (or, to be fair, Stern or Air America)

Thanks for the answer. Words like 'eradicate' and 'filth' are somewhat extreme. I suppose I should be glad he's just talking about speech.

"Abu Ghraib is more than a blight on this war: it's the propaganda equivalent of a thermonuclear weapon. And this war is all about propaganda—there's no doubt that the U.S. military could kill every single person in Iraq if we wanted to. Military superiority is not in dispute here. This is a hearts-and-minds war, and there is very little that could have been more destructive to a hearts-and-minds campaign than the pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib."

I wholeheartedly agree with the above. It's the solutions that have me buggered. Rumsfeld stepping down is a long shot. Tenet? Christ that guy has presided over more failures than he can shake a stick at. I also use the word "solution" relatively as obviously nothing is going to completely fix this.

Soli,
David Brock is a well paid propagandist. Whether he shills for the right or left doesn't matter. He is not a man to be trusted. That is the entire concept of right or left wing "watches". It's not exposure of the truth but rather exposure of your opponent as a liar.

Yes, Ryan, I'm lying lying lying. I'm a big fat liar. Nice one, Ace. Accusing people of lying is far easier than attacking their arguments as being specious. Also, it helps obscure their point AND makes you feel all righteous and right. Now THAT'S a tactic.

I left out the word "fringe", so sorry about that. Carelessness, not lying. My point was that NOT only the left/left fringe/whoever are the only ones calling for heads and impeachment, "rather than trying to find a way to fix this thing or punish the actual perpetrators, who are, last I checked, adults and responsible for their own actions" as Michele said. In other words, hold the soliders accountable and leave poor Bush and Rumsfeld out of it. That simply isn't the way the military works, nor should government work that way. Rad my George Will quote; he's onto something, and I usually despise the guy.

If the Army Times is openly demanding and George Will is pointedly suggesting that Rumsfeld resign (which WAS the point of his column, my little gimlet), what does that say to Michele's point about the FRINGE Left?

But no. I'm a big liar liar pants on fire, not someone trying to have a discussion. Everything is how you say it is, Ryan the Great. You win!

Ryan,

I agree, he's not to be trusted. I find that this makes him more valuable because he can't make the moral argument that you should just trust him and must instead back up his statements with supporting evidence. There is no substitute for good independant research and intellectual honesty, however.

I would highly advise against trusting anyone that you don't personally know without good reason.

"I left out the word "fringe", so sorry about that. Carelessness, not lying."

Bullshit you did so intentionally then backed it up with a lame "Michele does it all the time" as justification.

"what does that say to Michele's point about the FRINGE Left?"

Nothing, she never made the point that calls for heads where the exculsive domain of the left or even "the fringe left people". She was talking about the reflexive nature of the calling for heads from the opposition. Which is why I called your argument a strawman in the first place.

Play victim all you like...

"I agree, he's not to be trusted. I find that this makes him more valuable because he can't make the moral argument that you should just trust him and must instead back up his statements with supporting evidence. "

Interesting...that has some logic to it. He now HAS to be on the UP and UP because of his past or his venture will not have merit. The problem with that is this is a venture catering to those who will trust implicitly. This isn't a new media watchdog. Its a left wing propaganda organ seeking to emulate the MRC. Will it still be of some use? Yes, the degree of whether it becomes a Spinsanity or an MRC remains to be seen but I am betting on the latter. But hey at least this means the debunkers will have debunkers will have....etc etc.

"There is no substitute for good independant research and intellectual honesty, however."

Spinsanity does a pretty good job. But unfortunately being a fence sitter means both sides will fling poo at you.

Calling for Rumsfeld to step down is not partisan politics. The guy is supposed to be the boss. If he can be completely blindsided by something like this, then he should be gone. If he doesn't have his house in order, then it needs a new head of the household. Now if he wasn't completely blindsided and he knew about it ahead of time then he was trying to cover it up. This seems alittle more likely, considering that the Red Cross has asid they were warning people about abuses for months now, and the Defense Dept. requested that 60 Minutes suppress the photos a few days before they aired them. Yet the Secretary of Defense had no idea! Hadn't even seen the photos, even though there were cd's floating around with all those photos. Imagine that!
Most likely scenario, He knew. He knew because he is involved in determining what measures are taken and methods used in those interrogations. He knew, yet he was trying to do damage control.
I mean, let's be honest, It wasn't all that bad right?
I know some of you out there are thinking it. After all, they deserve it, and it'll help save american lives.
The voice of wisdom Rush Lie-baugh has said, it was nothing worse than a frat hazing. Oh wait, Rush only saw a few of the more harmless photos when he made that comment? Afterwords he recanted and condemned the abuse. Gee, I wonder what Rush would say if he was grabbed by soldiers at gun point, thrown in prison (this in a country where going to prison was very often a death sentence under the last ruler) Then kept awake, wet down, denied food, and naked for long periods of time. Stack Rush in pile of naked men and then see how fast he runs back to his pills...
One small problem here is that a large number of the prisoners are innocent. Some are grabbed off the streets because of "intelligence" from other Iraqi's.
Gee, your neighbor piss you off? Tell the soldiers he's Al Qaida...
I mean if you're gonna make an omlette, you gotta break a couple eggs right? So what's a little bit of torture, and a couple accidental homicides, if it utimately saves some american lives, right?
I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld could have no idea. He had to, but he can't come out and say he approved it, now can he? Instead a bunch of reservists are going to pay for obeying orders that they should have dis-obeyed. But the ones who gave the orders have to pay too. No matter who it is.
As for Bush, If he was truly angry and disgusted, why doesn't he seem to be?
He DIDN'T appologize when he went on Arab elevision. In fact, come to think of it, he never appologized on camera. Even with his appology to Abdullah. We never saw it, he said afterwards "I told him I was sorry"
It just doesn't sound very genuine. I'm sure if he knew about it or not before hand, but it seems like he and Rumsfeld will take little or no responsibility for what happened. A common theme for this administration...

And one thing about your united in the face of the enemy, michele.
It's bullshit.
It's the same argument that gets dragged out time and time again by the republicans. When Tom Delay said those calling for Rumsfelds resignation were craven and giving aid to the enemy, I wanted to FUCKING PUKE.
Do you honestly think that calling for someone to resign is going to drive more volunteers into Al Qaida's camps?
NO! The pictures of torture are going to! Try thinking for yourself, break away from the herd.

We have a right to dissent, we have a right to question. More than that, we have a duty to do so. If I think someone is full of shit, then it is my responsibility to call him a bullshitter.
The Fact is: less than 50% of amercians believe Bush is doing a good job of handling the war in Iraq. So are we supposed to shut up about it? NO!
The thing that has given the most aid to the enemy is the abuse itself. Claiming otherwise and crying "politics" is a disgrace and simply an effort to put themselves above the system

But what better an example for the Iraqi people to aspire to than to see accountability in the leaders of our country. If we fuck up, we should pay for it, and then make sure we don't fuck up again. Because that's the main thing that's going to help the enemy.

If I think someone is full of shit, then it is my responsibility to call him a bullshitter.

Really? How do you make it through the day?

My comments here

The summation is this:

Those two factors— the likelihood of a massive violent backlash in response to the Abu Ghraib scandal and the odds against Bush being willing to change ground tactics in Iraq in response to such a backlash —lead me to believe that a lot of U.S. soldiers may die over this, and that U.S. goals in the occupation of Iraq will be severely impeded.

Make that "the CERTAINTY of a massive violent backlash" and I'm in complete agreement. And we have already seen the first fruits.

This is a political failure of the first order - and the reason is that it's a result of complete lost of any connection between fundamentally ethical behavior, the ruling moral codes of our society, and the reduction of those codes to standards that consistently apply only in public, and only to other people that we don't happen to care for. But nothing less than that will likely serve to impress the world that we take such matters seriously, as matters of personal responsibility.

Speaking of that; if anyone involved in this mess from now on ever uses the words "personal responsibility" in regard to anyone else, ever - shake the dust from your feet.

Popped in from Chief Wiggles. You make excellent points. I am so saddened by this and my retired AF husband is downright angry at the excuses lawyers are making for those charged that he will say little.
I am fed up with the media continuation of parading the pictures which further enrages people and serves no purpose at this point in time, that I turn off the news.