I'm amazed at a time when politics seemed to be particularly poloarized how much both sides have come together in order decry the inhumane and unAmerican activities of torture, and mistreatment of POW's in Iraq. We have Bush, Rumsfeld, Meyers, and others on the same side as Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. agreeing that this was contrary to the values the country was founded on. People from the left and right have come together perhaps more about this than anything since 9/11. Even on the board several conservatives are declaring their distaste for such activities to various degrees. However, just like with 9/11 there is a fringe that is clearly outside the mainstream and believes the actions were appropriate. After 9/11 there were some left wingers on the fringe that believed that the U.S. got what it deserved despite the fact that those that died were innocents. Now it's the right wing fringe that believes torture, murder and rape are o.k. as long as it's Americans torturing, murdering, and raping. An event like this has exposed the fringe, and highlighted some common ground that we didn't know existed between political adversaries in this time of political polarization.
Oddly, I feel much pride in my country when those folks raise their arguments. Because I know they are out of the mainstream. That our politicians and leaders are disgusted, embarrassed, and humiliated that such treatment is associated with the United States. Our country stands for something, not just the ol' realpolitik save your own ass and wallet. Some humorous but sad cclaims were made in the other thread that those who are disgusted by these actions somehow don't support our troops. Well I doubt that any of our soldiers ever gave their lives so their country can rape, torture and murder others. I would imagine that they believed their country to be bound by it's ideals. And for those of you who argue for the torture ( ), do you really think that whatever was learned from the prisoners will help our troops and civilians more than the fallout? How do you think Iraqis will want to align their government? Pro-US? ha! Will the US ever be taken seriously when fighting for other's human rights? Do you think we may have created more terrorists in just about every Muslim country? I could go on, but I feel ill. It's just disgusting.
well it appears we have the fringe here at this bbs as there are conservatives here that are defending the torture in some ridiculous way
Though Bush bears much of the responsibility for what was happening in those prisons, I admire how he's handled it since the story broke. He went right on Arab TV and said he was sorry. Then he went before the American people and said he was sorry. It takes a man to accept responsibility and apologize for your mistakes. I'm not absolving Bush of these war crimes, but I do respect how he's handled the blowback.
I don't think Bush has had any other choice but to do the right thing where this is concerned. Even so, I appreciate and applaud him doing it. Next step, he needs to fire Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld didn't know exactly what was going on prior to the photos coming out he didn't know because he didn't want to. It was willfull ignorance. He was told again and again about the 'abuses' and chose not to address them until the photos came out and he had no choice. He has to go. If Bush won't fire him, all the apologies in the world are only lip service.
Cohen: I think he was probably dead meat before internal polling showed there was only about 30% support for his firing. The more people know about this though, the more it lands on his doorstep. Slate's got a good article on why he's probably safe, but it's from May 7 so it might be out of date by now. Regardless of how I feel about Bush's policies and presidency, his team is really weighing him down. If there was some kind of way to dump Rummy, Cheney and Ashcroft without it looking like admitting he'd made serious mistakes, Bush would win in a walk.
I will say if there is a silver lining to any of that, it's that we found something that almost everyone can agree on, and unite on. In a way it might make more of us take a look at what it means to be an American, what this country was founded on, and the kinds of values we really do aspire to, and wish to exemplify. The fringe that back these activities, make me wonder, what went wrong somewhere along the way, at aleast where those folks are concerned, and if they are too far down that road to turn back.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade I will say if there is a silver lining to any of that, it's that we found something that almost everyone can agree on, and unite on. In a way it might make more of us take a look at what it means to be an American, what this country was founded on, and the kinds of values we really do aspire to, and wish to exemplify. Exactly. This makes people really think about what they want their country to stand for. The fringe that back these activities, make me wonder, what went wrong somewhere along the way, at aleast where those folks are concerned, and if they are too far down that road to turn back. I hope not.
Originally posted by Batman Jones Cohen: I think he was probably dead meat before internal polling showed there was only about 30% support for his firing. The more people know about this though, the more it lands on his doorstep. ... Yeah, I don't think he's dead yet, I just think it's inevitable. (And he wouldn't be out the door if this wasn't an election year, but there's just going to be too much heat on this one). Regardless of how I feel about Bush's policies and presidency, his team is really weighing him down. If there was some kind of way to dump Rummy, Cheney and Ashcroft without it looking like admitting he'd made serious mistakes, Bush would win in a walk. Weighing him down? There is no Bush, only his team. Four years ago, I felt like some of his positive traits may work with his team's experience for a good administration But his team is from another era...archaic. Bush's supposed positive traits have never shown through; I still think he honetly believes in what he's doing but he's shielded from the harsh realities by a team which I do not trust at all. I would rather the US be the moral, benevolent giant than the self-serving, power-hungry monster they want us to be.
I agree with you, Cohen. There was a good article (in the Washington Post, I think) yesterday or today about how a lot of conservatives feel the way you do about the Bush team. When I said they were weighing him down, I meant in public opinion. My mother's been a Republican all her life, but she won't vote Bush again. She hates Kerry and Teresa too (to the point where she won't use Heinz catsup - LOL), but she really hates Cheney, Rummy and Ashcroft. And that's helping her along in learning to hate Bush too. Great thread, by the way, FB. Sorry for any partisan derailment. It really is nice to find points of agreement with the other side, even if it is a horrible situation we're agreeing about.
Now if we could just agree on the rule of law and the importance of procedural rights for the accused. This is not the result of not properly training the troops a common claim. It is not merely a problem with the chain of command, or of course six or 25 "wrongdoers". This started at the top. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft and the lawyers they surrounded themseves with. Bush ,too, of course. However, one wonders if he has ever quite learned the concepts of rule of law and procedural rights. It started with rounding up Muslim suspects right after 9/11, holding them without legal rights, Gunatanamo, calling them enemy combatants with no Geneva Convention Rights, military tribuanals, no jury trials, taking away procedural rights under the Patriot Act. It was all so clear that we were entering a possible slippery slope. It was agued at the time that we would wind up looking bad, that abuses could happen, that we had a chance to show to the world our respect for freedom and the rule of law. These Administration guys showed their contempt for the rule of law. Any idiot can be for the rule of law when things are normal. The Administration just recently argued at the Supreme Court that it didn't need to follow the Geneva Convention or criminal procedural rights for various people expected of being terrorists, that the Executive could in a vacuum with no safeguards protect their rights sufficiently. Hopefully the S. Ct. will act like the S. Ct. and not the committee to support the President on this one..
There is no Bush, only his team. Exactly. He could govern in Texas without needing more than a decent group of advisors, but it hasn't cut it in the White House. I don't know how many times I've posted, "He's getting bad advice. He needs to clean house." It's been a long time. Bush is so far over his head, and he is too stubborn and too fearful to start from scratch with new people. I mostly agree with Batman that if he did get rid of the worst of the bad lot, that he would have a strong chance of winning. Where I disagree is that it would be a walk. Bush has waited too long to make that kind of move and the longer he waits, the harder it will be to pull it off and not look desperate. There is no Bush, only his team. Bumper sticker material, Cohen.
i was thinking about this the other day, and wondered who you'd replace them with? my choices: -AG= Giuliani. ok, it's an obvious and popular choice, but it makes sense all the same. hard to think opf any other republican who would command the same respect. -DOD= you'd have to replace wolfowitz as well i think. i almost agree w/ teddy_chappaquidick_kennedy here and think powell would be an excelllent choice. problem is, i think DOD needs a strong hand, and my respect for powell has dropped somewhat in the past year. might consider bringing back Cohen, for the sake of bi-partisanship. yes, i know he was a republican, but he served under WJC. -VP= not going with the popular choice, Condolezza. I think W could/ should turn the race upside down, and change the dynamic for '08, by asking McCain to join a republican unity cabinet. i also think it's the only way mccain could get the nomination four years from now, if he was the sitting VP. as side note. i just got off a plane for the first time since 9/11. maybe i'm late to this party, but fortified cockpit doors and video survellience of the cabin: how hard was that? with those two things in place, 9/11 never happens. can't believe no one in government or industry made that connection. would've made a great marketing slogan: Fly Jet Blue, Don't get Blown UP!!!
I still haven't flown since 9/11. It's likely I'll never get on a plane again. Wasn't that big of a fan of flying before 9/11. I still think 9/11 happens even with fortified cabin doors. If anything, the damage is worse. I would bet that the pilots would've opened the door and cooperated with the hijackers. That's just the way hijackings were handled. Even if you think the higher-ups in government knew about the planes as missiles thing, I don't think the pilots themselves truly considered it. We don't know for sure what happened with the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, but with a fortified cockpit door, it may have been possible for the hijackers to complete their mission to wherever they were targeting (though by that point in the attack, the plane probably would've been shot down before it got too close to D.C.). I seriously think that if the people on those flights thought they were headed for a suicide mission, they'd have attempted to fight back (like what happened on the last flight). Replacements? Giuliani would probably make a good AG. I'd keep Powell at State and give him someone that will work with him at Defense. Don't know who, though. VP? I personally never liked the Cheney choice. Don't know about McCain, though, but certainly not Rice.
basso: Agreed on Guiliani. Agreed on Cohen. Don't have the first idea why Powell's disappointed you in the last year. If not for him, the administration would have presented even bigger misrepresentations of the threat and would have conducted the entire war effort with considerably more arrogance. Hard to believe to be sure, but indisputably true. Powell's disappointed me for sure, but he's been the closest thing to a voice of reason those guys have had. McCain as VP??? You've got to be kidding. Whatever McCain says in public, Bush will be lucky to get his vote, let alone get him as a running mate. McCain might let Bush be his VP, but there ain't no way the administration's toughest Republican critic would join the ticket under a president who's constantly disappointed him and who positively trashed him with dirty tricks in 2000. You'd have about as much luck getting Zell Miller to run with Kerry.
Like I said before, those troops crossed the line when they appeared to enjoy inflicting humiliation upon the prisoners. But where does simple humiliation become pure torture? Where is that line is something we have to ask ourselves. If stripping a prisoner naked gets information about terrorists trying to kill our troops, good. But I think anal rape with broom sticks crosses the line into perversion and will likely not get much information out of someone. Even Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a conservative, believes there are situations where torture is a legitimate option, especially since the Geneva Conventions do not apply to extra-national terrorist "combatants." link
After reading what was on Drudge this morning, we should throw the book at those perverted sonuvabitches. I talked about crossing the line, well....they took a flying leap over it. Ewww!!!!!
I agree. I also agree that when we are talking about extra-national terrorists (Iraqi citizens do not qualify under this heading, IMO), torture MIGHT be justified in certain situations. However, the actions of these soldiers are egregious and they should be punished along with anyone who ordered them to perform such acts.
