Remember when public figures were impressive? Yes, once there were good men, and we'd occasionally elect them.
Remember when public figures were impressive? It's a dim, distant memory, but not a nostalgic hallucination: once there were good men, and we'd occasionally elect them.…
Article comments
26 - Les Slater
> Wake up. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Ever. Not gonna happen. This most recent Supreme Court opening was Bush's last chance, and he blew it. (I suspect even Roberts won't vote to overturn that precedent; Harriet won't go near it, as her friend Hecht so nicely pointed out.) But keep dreaming.
The purpose of putting Roberts and Miers on the Court is to guarantee that Roe will NOT be overturned.
27 - adam
Excellent posting as usual, Douglas.
Dave, you really can be a knee-jerk Bushit defender, despite the fact that you're also quite sensible. Douglas really nails you with this one:
"Oh, and Les: you missed that David couldn't wait to counter any post remotely critical of the current administration. It's an illness with him -- given that whenever you ask him what he truly believes, you tend to get a sensible response."
When you have a chance to think, you're thoughtful, but more often than not you're too quick off the mark with some inane defense of the Bushits: which one is the real you?
28 - Les Slater
> When you have a chance to think, you're thoughtful, but more often than not you're too quick off the mark with some inane defense of the Bushits: which one is the real you?
I always oppose the policies of the Bush administration. Show me where it is otherwise.
29 - Les Slater
After rereading 27, it seems the “Oh Les” criticism was referring to Dave.
At the time Douglas wrote his 8, Dave had only written his 1, which had no support of Bush in it.
It wasn’t till his 17 that Dave was apologetic of both McCain and Bush. I responded with my 18.
There was no basis for Douglas’s 4. That’s why “Did I miss something?” of my 6.
I don’t think Dave’s 17 contradicts his 1, he just elaborates and shows that he does not see what’s going on.
I don’t see Dave’s subjective, objective maybe, support for Bush in his 17 either. It is just an indication of his naïveté.
30 - Dave Nalle
>>Yes, I retract my retraction. For Christ's sake, Dave -- what do you think Fishback's testimony is all about? Torture on a *systematic basis*.
Misquote. He said 'systemic basis', which doesn't mean the same thing. His testimony is that torture was a widespread problem as a result of confusion, not that it was a systematic procedure or policy.
>>And the administration is doing their best to cover it up (to shut him up, that is). Rumsfeld has been credibly quoted as saying, "Either break him, or destroy him."<<
Are you actually familiar with what Fishback has said, or are you just picking up interpretations from secondary sources? That Rumsfeld "quote" has never been attributed or substantiated in ANY source. It's pure speculation.
Fishback definitively does NOT say that there was a policy of torture. Instead, his focus is on the lack of clarity of policy, and the lack of oversight of middle-management when it came to prisoner abuse. The word he uses is not 'systematic', but 'systemic'. Very significantly different words from someone who clearly knows what they mean.
In addition, Fishback himself was involved in torturing prisoners and seems only to have developed concerns about it after the fact. Some might say that CYA is playing a big role here.
The really mystifying thing about Fishback's statements is that he goes on and on about how he went to various people and asked them what the policy was supposed to be and kept getting ambiguous answers. One has to wonder why he didn't read the Geneva Convention - which is widely available and to which we are signatories and which several people pointed him to, including the JAG officer on site, or read the Army Field Manual which he was certainly issued or could get hold of a copy of pretty damned easily. Why was Fishback so confused on issues which are clearly defined in black and white?
Here are a couple of the questions Fishback asked:
Fishback �Is it a violation to chain prisoners to the ground naked for the purpose of interrogations?�
Army Field Manual: "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity...Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.
Fishback �And then there is the prisoner on the box with the wires attached to him, and to me, as long as electricity didn�t go through the wires, that was in accordance with what I would have expected US policy to be and that he wasn�t under the threat of death.
Army Field Manual: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
There's no mystery or ambiguity here. What exactly was Fishback fishing for when he started asking these questions? The official policy he should have been following is absolutely clear and easily available. Hell, as a West Pointer he should have had it memorized. Was he looking for permission to torture, or trying to 'catch' others violating the rules so he could turn them in? Was he trying to pursue some sort of personal or political agenda? For that matter why did he end up going ot Human Rights Watch when there are so many on capitol hill who'd love to have talked to him? His behavior seems largely ego driven and very, very suspect.
But you be the judge. The Fishback testimony is on Human Rights Watch.
I know, once again I'm going to be accused of being a Bush apologist, but this has nothing to do with Bush. It's just about the facts as they really exist. Torture is unacceptable, and the military DOES have a policy on it, and anyone - like Fishback - who couldn't figure that policy out is either an idiot or up to no good.
Dave
31 - Silas Kain
America needs a transitional President as the victor in the 2008 election. John McCain would be the ideal President to bridge us from the era of marginal, morally devoid Presidencies to a new era of electing the best that America has to offer. Senator McCain is a candidate attractive to the mainstream. He may be conservative in many areas, but he is a realist. He serves his country well and has been demonized for far too long by the Rovian machine. That, in and of itself, should have tipped off Americans that the good Senator would be a great choice. Rovians don't like candidates who speak their minds and represent the best of what America has to offer. Instead, Rovians recruit and promote those who can be made puppets by spin meisters and big business. You want to define an enemy of the state? Look no further than Karl Rove.
32 - Dave Nalle
Give me a break, Silas. Karl Rove is just a machiavellian political operative who does what it takes to advance the interests of his guy. IMO he's a breath of fresh air compared to the various ideologues on both sides who are out there. He has no political principles - or any principles at all - and you need guys like that around to do the dirty work.
As for McCain, I'm all for him, but he's much more conservative than a lot of people realize and he is genuinely pro-life, unlike Bush. But his main liability is his age. I think he's going to be slightly older than Reagan was when he was elected, and his health history isn't as good as Reagan's was.
Then there's the question - if he's a transitional president - what is he transitioning to? Jeb Bush? Barrack Obama? There are a couple of unappealing prospects.
Dave
33 - Silas Kain
I know, Dave. Rove is different from other Rasputins who have occupied an office in the White House. That being said, my instincts tell me that he is more than an opportunist. Perhaps I am silly to base my disdain for Rove on my instincts but they have served me well in the past. John Roberts is a good case in point. On the surface, he seemed like an ideal nominee for the conservatives to applaud. That made many liberals nervous. My gut told me that beyond the media hype was a decent guy who would be reasonable on the bench. Of course, it's too early to tell how it will all come down. But, in the meantime, I'll rely on my instincts.
34 - Dave Nalle
As you point out with the Roberts nomination, Rove isn't exactly working FOR the Theocons. He's there to figure out how to make them toe the line. IMO that's not such a bad thing.
Dave
35 - Silas Kain
Yep, the THEOCONS served Rove well. Rove is a modern day Saul of Tarsus!
36 - Dave Nalle
Perfect comparison, Silas. Saul was a hypocritical bastard, but he got the job done.
Dave
37 - Nancy
The fact that Rove has no principles at all - that he will in fact gladly & gleefully do any dirty work required of him or that he feels necessary - is precisely why I look forward to seeing his ass frogmarched in handcuffs from the WH, and why it is even more urgent & imperative that he be neutralized & never allowed to operate for anyone, of any party, ever again; because his ultimate target is not the immediate focus of his attention, but the US citizenry who he deprives of their rights by his dirty tricks & vile behavior/thinking. I would strongly suggest we use him instead against foreign interests such as the Chinese or N. Korea, where his guile would serve the US much better.
38 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Dave, while I'll grant you that there is a difference between "systemic" and "systematic," I will *not* grant you that the one is somehow less damning than the other.
"Systemic" suggests a pervasive activity which is, at least at the lower levels of the system, unconscious: it is structural. "Systematic" implies a conscious regime of behavior. (This is a simplification, but it seems to me generally correct.)
What is important, to my mind, is that systemic issues are equally the responsibility of the leaders of any given institution: the system is *their* system, and theirs to change. You cannot exculpate Bush on the grounds that his leadership and policies do not promote the explicit, systematic application of torture: the fact is that they *permit and overlook and thereby encourage* the abuse of detainees.
And this has nothing to do with the letter of the law, as quoted by you: Gonzales' memo, and its endorsement by Bush and Rumsfeld, explicitly *deny the relevance of those laws.* Hence Fishback's question: which do we follow, the laws learned at Westpoint, or Gonzales' "new paradigm."
As for this discussion of Saul of Tarsus: I'm interested in how you get from St. Paul to St. Karl. There are many theories regarding Paul: for instance, that he invented as opposed to merely codified Christianity. But even Paul as The Greatest Salesman in the World was never precisely a Rove figure -- he rallied the base after the fact, and was a front man, not a Machiavellian operator behind the scenes.
Also, to my mind there is no doubting his sincerity -- his anti-Semitism, like Luther's, stemmed from hideous conviction, rather than cynical opportunism. For the personality of Paul, there's a rigorous treatise is at:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S
39 - Dave Nalle
>>"Systemic" suggests a pervasive activity which is, at least at the lower levels of the system, unconscious: it is structural. "Systematic" implies a conscious regime of behavior. (This is a simplification, but it seems to me generally correct.) <<
That's how I read the two words as well. And the difference IS significant. It's the difference between murder and negligent homicide.
>>What is important, to my mind, is that systemic issues are equally the responsibility of the leaders of any given institution: the system is *their* system, and theirs to change. You cannot exculpate Bush on the grounds that his leadership and policies do not promote the explicit, systematic application of torture: the fact is that they *permit and overlook and thereby encourage* the abuse of detainees. <<
Sure, there's blame to be given out at high levels if the problem is systemic - which is Fishback's assertion, but which may not be borne out by other evidence.
>>And this has nothing to do with the letter of the law, as quoted by you: Gonzales' memo, and its endorsement by Bush and Rumsfeld, explicitly *deny the relevance of those laws.* Hence Fishback's question: which do we follow, the laws learned at Westpoint, or Gonzales' "new paradigm."<<
Fishback never mentions any question about whether the prisoners should be considered POWs or not, nor does he ever mention the gonzales memo, which almost certainly did not filter down to his level in the military hierarchy. His confusion seems to stem entirely from his observation of and participation in questionable activities without any supervision or guidance. In which case why did he not do the logical thing and consult the Army Field Manual?
is testimony speaks most clearly of his own profound lack of character, not just of the lack of guidance which the military was providing him. I submit that most officers of his rank do not need special instructions on how to treat prisoners humanely, and that much of the confusion he portrays stemmed from others not understanding why Fishback was at all confused in the first place.
His account of his discussion with the JAG officer is a perfect example of this. Looked at objectively the JAG officer basically blew him off as irritating and perhaps idiotic and in effect said 'go read the geneva convention', which Fishback in his somewhat delusional way took as the JAG guy being confused about the policy, when it seems more likely he was confused about why the hell Fishback was asking him such a dumb question.
Dave
40 - Dave Nalle
As for Rove's amorality, I find it refreshing. I'd rather have more honest amorality and less dishonest and hypocritical religious self-righteousness.
Dave
41 - Anthony Grande
The thread is about MCCAIN, not Rove or Christianity!!!
McCain for President!!!
McCain for President!!!
Down with Roe v. Wade!!!
Down with Roe v. Wade!!!
McCain for President!!!
42 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but if McCain wins it will be because he listens to someone like Rove who tells him to soft-pedal his pro-life stance and tell the people what they want to hear. You should love the Karl Rove's of the world, Anthony - they keep your illusion of hope alive.
dave
43 - Anthony Grande
Just wait... Dave, Just wait...
44 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Anthony, you make me nervous. And I say that as a fence-sitter on the question of abortion. This kind of zealotry does *not* help your cause. The fact is that a hefty majority of Americans -- well over sixty percent -- are in favor of the decision in Roe v. Wade.
As for your naive notions about Miers -- recall that Laura Bush was a major force in this selection. This from David Frum's blog on NRO:
"Remember: Laura Bush is on record as a supporter - not just of abortion rights - but of the Roe v. Wade decision. Interviewed on the Today program in January 2001, Mrs. Bush was asked point blank about the case. Her answer: "No, I don't think it should be overturned." Is it credible that Mrs. Bush would be endorsing Harriet Miers if the first lady thought that Miers would really do what James Dobson thinks she'll do?"
(i.e. overturn Roe v. Wade)
As for McCain: he's a pragmatist. He'll pay lip service to the anti-choice contingent, but he knows that some 63 percent of Americans are on the other side of this issue.
45 - Anthony Grande
>The fact is that a hefty majority of Americans -- well over sixty percent -- are in favor of the decision in Roe v. Wade.<
I got to disagree there Douglas. Even Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is now Anti-Abortion. Here: http://www.webedelic.com/church/roevwadef.htm
46 - Dave Nalle
The fact that one person changed her opinion - even if she was the original subject of the case - means nothing in the face of the statistical trend in support of abortion.
Dave
47 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Um, one example does not a statistic make. (And Jane Roe is not the most stable human being.) Here's a good roundup of the most recent polls:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507220007
I'm afraid the number don't lie.
48 - adam
Dave: your Jesuit parsing of "systemic" and "systematic" is ludicrous. The fact is that "systemic" means the military is positively riddled with torture, and Brownback was either trying to find a place for his conscience amidst all that was openly -- i.e. systematically and systemically -- going on, or more probably, trying to cover his ass. General Miller brought Gitmo practices to the Middle-East, and was charged to do so by the higher-ups, none of whom are being held accountable, while peons like Lynndie England are being court-martialed. And now Bush threatens to veto John McCain's move. Jesus, don't be shilling for Bush's odious immorality, you're better than that.
49 - adam
Bush says he's against torture. He also says he's going to have great programs for rebuilding the Gulf Coast, but where are they? If Bush says something, it doesn't mean much. It means Rove told him to say it. His actions usually belie his bromides.
50 - Dave Nalle
"Gitmo practices"? You mean treating prisoners like they're basically in a luxury hotel?
Dave