Right in the midst of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandal, Bush has been going around the country proclaiming the wonderful thing we have done in removing Saddam Hussein and closing his torture chambers. (Bush Story)
Now you will not hear me or anyone else disagree with that statement, but for Bush to say that right now, during the height of the outrage at the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of members of the U.S. military - without so much as acknowledging that it occurred, is ridiculous. When I saw footage of him repeating this statement I must say that it seemed somewhat surreal. It was like watching a bad propaganda film - one which tells half of the facts and attempts to make you believe that that is the whole story when you damn well know it's not!
So let me get this straight, we closed Hussein's torture chambers and opened our own? One in the very same building that Saddam had one?
In listening to the Senate testimony of Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers yesterday, I must say I was not particularly impressed by what they had to say. Many investigations are currently underway into these matters which will hopefully bring the whole truth to light. It seemed that Rumsfeld was trying to make the entire scandal seem like it was the result of six low ranking members of the Army serving as prison guards at the Abu Ghraib prison - the whole "bad apple" notion. Certainly they should be held responsible for any illegal acts they carried out, despite their "I was just following orders" defense (all too familiar claims that seem like echoes from Vietnam and World War II). Despite this, however, it seems unlikely that what was going on at that prison, and perhaps at others, was not the result of influence from others up the chain of command. The loose adherence to Geneva Convention protocols in dealing with POWs as ordered by Bush and Rumsfeld seems to have had something to do with causing this scanal as well. The vast scope of this story and the media saturation that has resulted will hopefully ensure that the truth comes out, whatever that ultimately may be.
Article comments
1 - 1MaNLan
"George Bush....Losing his MIND?" Now THAT is a surreal statement...or part of a trick question.
2 - sandra smallson
George Bush has no mind to lose. How dare you insult those who truly have minds and might have lost them?!
3 - Lynn
"LOSING"???
4 - Purple Tigress
Perhaps we aren't really looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We're actually looking for George W. Bush's mind. I wonder where Dick Cheney left it?
5 - Kudd45
Enjoying spouting off random specualtions you heard on t.v.? Good job showing you inabilities to think before you speak. It's fun to get swept up in nationwide criticism with any knowledge (True Knowledge), about anything to do with Iraq or any other political matters, isn't it? Congrats to all you sheep being blindly guided to your convictions via mass media and speculative conversation.The left is really counting on you to keep this up, be sure not to disappoint.
6 - Eric Olsen
Okay, I am outraged by Inhofe's outrage with the outrage. It is absolutely critical that we behave properly when it comes to the conduct of war. There ARE rules and by ignoring them we are behaving no better than terrorists. We owe ethical treatment of presumed enemies TO OURSELVES.
7 - srp
absolutely agree, that if we do not abide by the Geneva Convention then we really aren't coming from a place of power. it's a dodgy issue. someone asked me the other day whether or not i thought if humiliation were being used as a means to get information, as it then okay? i don't think humiliation on this scale, or really any, is okay... but when i think about it in context, the real question is, Would these tactics have prevented what happened to the states on 9/11. Would we have gotten any information, and are these tactics getting us information -- if that's the argument (and i keep hearing it, so i'm assuming this is the poor defense.
what do y'all think? If tactics like this did actually work, and i honestly don't know, though doubt, would you change your position on this? I would guess not, but i'm curious... I am not advocating, for the record, i think it's always wrong to humiliate people and degrade, and here it looks like some serious abuse as well, when put into social context especially, but again...several people have used this argument w/ me ... well? thoughts? thx.in advance to all who can help me with this question...
8 - bhw
My only comment about humiliation and other tactics is this: if it's okay for us to do it, then expect it and worse to be done to our soldiers if they're captured [sometimes it already is being done, I'd assume] AND for nobody around the world to give a shit AND for us not to have a leg to stand on to utter one condemnation or seek any kind of justice.
Those are some of the consequences of making those tactics permissible.
9 - mike
I tell you, if Kerry gets elected, he'll probably set Saddam free. That's because Saddam is a liberal and was once a registered Democrat. He contributed $100 to Michael Dukakis's 1988 Presidential campaign.
We must stop the Baathist Democratic Party from winning the fall elections, even if it means cancelling the elections themselves. Electing Kerry would be like electing bin laden. That's just a proven fact.
Yes, I'm continuing my trek through the right wing blog, and hope to offer up even more insights as searching as these.