Dead Man Blogging

I am getting fairly disillusioned with George W Bush.

Here are some of the reasons. These specific stories are just illustrative.

First, this story: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/July/15/update.htm

We are not a police state, nobody is truly quashing dissent. But this sort of thing has become much too common. Creating “protest zones” is not cool. Neither is arresting protesters. It indicates an attitude that I believe is entirely incompatible with public service. You do not arrest people who show up at a presidential appearance wearing “Love America, Hate Bush” T-shirts. Even if you might technically be within your rights to arrest them. If you “fear for their safety” then you know what you do, policemen? You _protect_ them. This is America.

Second thing is http://in.news.yahoo.com/040806/137/2fdm8.html

You remember they raised the terror alert in NYC the other day and were criticized for it. Someone leaked that the reason they did so was that
they had arrested some guy named Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan who
was a computer whiz and sending and receiving encrypted messages for bin Laden. This was quickly followed by some massive arrests in England and
elsewhere.

The guy had been arrested, but was A MOLE at the point that the official leaked his name. Due to the leak, law enforcement officials had to move more quickly than they wanted to and prematurely end the sting operations.

This tells me that at least some members of the Bush administration are either (1) morons, or (2) more concerned with being vindicated than with winning the
War on Terror.

I just checked Drudge, and now I have a third reason: http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+International+team+to+monitor+presidential+election+-+Aug+8%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11261137&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FALLPOLITICS%2F08%2F08%2Finternational.observers%2Findex.html&partnerID=2001

This makes me very mad. We are a sovereign nation, and international election monitors have no business here.

And I am disillusioned with Alan Keyes and Republicans in general:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040809/ap_on_el_se/illinois_senate

If Keyes is going to criticize Hillary for moving to NY to run for the Senate, he should not move from Maryland to Illinois to run for the Senate. He said
just last week that “As a matter of principle, I don’t think it’s a good idea” to run for Senate in a state you aren’t from. Which means to me, he does not stick to his principles. I agree with his politics, and voted for him in the 2000 primary, but this bothers me a lot.

Keyes is right, Obama _must_ be challenged. But as Obama is from Illinois, he should be challenged by a conservative _from Illinois_.

I do not know to what extent these things matter to anyone else, but I’m not sure I still support Bush or will vote for him. I’d rather lose on principle.

It’s been reported that authorities have come upon the most shocking and disturbing photos of alleged American abuses in Iraq yet - graphic pictures of American GIs kicking puppies and recklessly littering.

In other news, photographs previously thought to be of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib have now been discovered to be snapshots of a San Francisco nightclub.

Alright, sorry, that was too much. I don’t want to make light of the Abu Ghraib. It’s inexcusable and unjustifiable, and should be condemned. People should be punished.

But look, this is not even vaguely like My Lai, the Inquisition, or any of the other things it’s been compared to. And it is most certainly not like the murder of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg. Not even close. I don’t understand how anyone could draw any similarities at all.

There are a lot of things we don’t know about these photographs. A picture is worth a thousand words, but you have to make sure it’s the _right_ thousand words. We have virtually no context for these pictures.

Let me try to be clear: There are no imaginable circumstances that would make the abuse of those prisoners even remotely justifiable. But there may be factors that would make it more or less awful. We need to keep those factors in mind so that we respond appropriately.

Proverbs 18:13 says “He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” Let’s be sure we hear the full story.

Who are these prisoners, and why are they in prison? Did US forces storm a park and round up daddies flying kites with their children? Are these shoplifters? Are they terrorists insurgents? Former officials under Saddam? Agents of these terrorist insurgent groups?

Why are they being treated this way? Are these US soldiers having fun? Are they just being sadistic? Is it part of a controlled attempt to break down these particular prisoners? Part of an attempt to intimidate and break down other prisoners by making an example of these? Are they being punished?

Why are the soldiers taking pictures? For kicks? Souvenirs? To mock and further abuse these prisoners? To aid in a physchological attempt to break down these or other prisoners?

Who is in charge? Are the soldiers acting of their own accord? Under orders from higher up? In cooperation with lower level intelligence agents? In cooperation with high level intelligence agents?

And we should remember a few things. We are at war. And our war is not simply with Iraq; it’s now with these guerilla fighters in Iraq, and you need an awful lot of intelligence to defeat them. Not to mention the terrorist groups.

There is no excuse or imaginable defense for the abuses shown in those pictures. It is wrong. But it is much “wronger” if the soldiers are simply being sadistic. It’s a different story, and probably deserves a different reaction, if this is part of a calculated attempt to gain necessary intelligence, and was carried out under the direction of high ranking intelligence officials. It’s still not excusable or defensible, and still people - including the soldiers involved - must be punished, and it’s still wrong, but it is different.

The man in charge of the US-run prisons in Iraq has apologized for the way some of the Iraqi prisoners were abused. So has General Kimmitt. They use language like “I would like to apologize for our nation and for our military” and “My Army has been embarrassed by this. My Army has been shamed by this. And on behalf of my Army, I apologize for what those soldiers did to your citizens”

But Bush and Rumsfeld aren’t apologizing. Rumsfeld will say “any American who sees the photographs that we have seen has to feel apologetic”.

This is roughly analogous to “I’m sorry if you were offended”. It is nothing like an apology.

Bush and Rumsfeld generally get credit for being plain-spoken. Why aren’t they doing it now? What’s wrong with “This happened on my watch, by people under my command. I am sorry. America is sorry. The soldiers who did those things do not represent us. This is abhorrent. The people who were responsible, including the officers who should have known what was going on, will face justice. I’m taking personal responsibility to find out what happened, and who is responsible, and I will make sure they are punished.”

The man at the top has the responsibility for what happens. Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible, even if indirectly, for what happened. _We_ are responsible, because we are a democratic republic, and those are our elected leaders and our soldiers. Somewhere along the line, someone screwed up royally. Or maybe the whole system did. The soldiers were not men of honor. The officers weren’t. Or maybe the officers were negligent in letting this happen. I don’t know exactly how the abuses happened, but it is the fault of the men in charge and the system that allowed these soldiers to abuse the Iraqis.

And Bush and Rumsfeld ought to apologize, directly and unambiguously, both on behalf of America and _personally_. If they won’t, then they are not the men I thought they were.