Skip to main content

View Diary: Kids sodomized at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has the videos - Hersh (430 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let it go?? (4.00)
    Are you out of your mind?  Drink the kool-aid?  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that  you are talking about short-term political strategy, and not the soul of the Republic.  I may not wave Constitutional protection for race slavery or Japanese internment or Native American genocide or Jim Crow in every political conversation I have, but it's part of our history, and now this is too.  

    We simply don't have the choice to "let the whole Abu Ghraib thing go" if we want to hold on to our current conception of the experiment Lincoln called "a new nation, conceived in liberty."  We are testing, yet again, and not for the last time, whether a nation "so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure."  I humbly suggest that to "let the whole Abu Ghraib thing go" is to surrender.

    Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

    by Pondite on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:04:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes -- short-term strategy. (2.12)
      I'm afraid I've created a little firestorm here -- sorry.

      Almost every liberal I know, and many of the posters on this site, use the Abu Ghraib scandal as an example of why George W. Bush should be removed from office.  Personally, I find it a little creepy that my fellow libs are all too willing to make this judgment.  It's like saying, "Ha HA!  NOW we got the fucker!"

      Problem is, you're not going to a find Presidential Order telling the National Guard, "Rape those kids, goddammit!  Fuck 'em!"  Problem is, Bush is not PERSONALLY responsible for these atrocities . . . for these SPECIFIC atrocities, that is.  Our presence there in the first place is another thing, of course.

      You may wonder why the Democratic ticket hasn't jumped all over this, as a hammer against Bush.  Well, because it wouldn't be wise.  Plus, it wouldn't be accurate.  Bush & his Neo-Cons may be credited for disdaining the Geneva Conventions, but that is still a long step -- believe it or not -- for directly pulling the trigger on rapes.

      "The thicker the hay, the more easily it is mowed."--Alaric, Gothic chief, outside the gates of Rome, 408 A.D.

      by Romulus Augustulus on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No that is YOUR spin. (4.00)
        This has been discussed here for months and that is not the take.  The take is HOPROR, andnot gotcha, that is your projection. If you are reading along iwth "your fellow libs".

        Sorry, yours is an old debunked argument.  As old as photography.  Old.  Debunked. Fellow liberals have moved on.

        I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.

        by Marisacat on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:27:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Moved on to what? (1.37)
          Why does the Abu Ghraib topic appear every five minutes on every liberal blog at which I lurk?  Why, if not to score some political points against Bush?

          I mean, I'm on your side.  I want Bush gone too, okay?  But if John Kerry likens Bush to a Nazi because of our National Guard's war crimes, Kerry will lose as sure as the sun will rise in the east.  Americans don't want to believe that their President is a Neo-Hitler, and they will repudiate the man accuses the Prez of being such.

          Atrocities go on every day in the world, atrocities that make Abu Ghraib look like a root canal.  I suppose we feel worse about this one because our guys are involved, but many on this blog aren't old enough to remember Vietnam.  This sort of thing is old news.  I guess when you've lived long enough, it's hard to get worked up over much of anything.  One gets tired, you know?

          In the meantime, Abu Ghraib is a sure-fire political loser . . . for us.  Your average American will simply put his/her fingers in his/her ears and go  "Na na na na na I'm not LISTening na na".  I guess I just take issue with your point that the Abu Ghraib scandal, re: political gain for Dems, is old news and that you've  "moved on" . . . when I see that it's the headlining thread on DailyKos as of this writing.

          "The thicker the hay, the more easily it is mowed."--Alaric, Gothic chief, outside the gates of Rome, 408 A.D.

          by Romulus Augustulus on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:45:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. YOur take is simplistic (4.00)
            uninformed and it furthers both apologist stances and it smacks a bit of furtherance of the agenda of the other side.  Perhaps that is not your purpose, but is the outcome.

            Very sorry.  Blunt again.  We disagree.  
            YOu are not a long time poster here, and even if you read every day and only posted but the small number you have, you have not engaged in this conversation and your impressions do not fit this site and its reactions....   And if you choose to see and be offended by the aoppraoch and the understanding of this enormous issue at this site, well, that leaves an issue for you.

            I was alive and aware for Vietnam, so can that one. Harkin and the tiger cages... Lt. Calley and that was only the atrocity that made headlines and a courts martial.  
            Your post, this one in partcular, is offensive in that it is very shallow in response to an issue of horror, and you seek to say this is a "loser" issue for the Dems.  It appears you parse and preach silence for success.  

            Where else you go and to whom you speak I do not know, nor much care.

            I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.

            by Marisacat on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:58:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  wrong, wrong, and wrong (4.00)
            it's not about scoring political points. it's about justice and morality.

            though you're also wrong about the effect abu ghraib has had on people's perceptions of the shlub. it's hit a lot of people very hard. especially in the "moral clarity" crowd.

            and i have to say i agree with m-cat about "fellow liberals". you're pretty transparent here. you clearly don't get it, in so many ways. but here you show up all of a sudden, trying to tell us this item is a "loser" so stay away.

            you're right it's a loser - for all americans. if we don't confront it and take care of it, we're all lost and it really doesn't matter who wins in november.

            i really don't think there's much point in the rest of us discussing it with you.  if i thought we could get through your manipulative cynicism there would be grounds for dialogue, but i can't see that happening on an internet board.

            enjoy your violent fantasies while they last.

            we're rolling back the republican crime wave

            by zeke L on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:00:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I guess I'll let it go.... (1.88)
              ... I've only went on about it because I was under the foolish impression that I wouldn't be attacked as a troll for simply agreeing with Subterrean's post that the  "story was over".

              I'm not really taking offense at anything -- it's a blog; who gives a shit, right? -- but you guys really need to learn how to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks.  Just a suggestion.

              I simply toss out an opinion, which is nothing more than to say that Americans are uneasy with the Abu Ghraib business, and are likely to cling to the President in a defensive gesture if the Dem ticket chooses to hammer on the subject.  I basically agreed with the original poster that the media has lost interest . . . possibly because AMERICA has lost interest.  The result? -- I'm branded a man with a  "rotten conscience"  who has  "violent fantasies".  (Worst of all, a secret conservative in the bargain!)

              Ever wonder why you feel marginalized by the Mainstream blah blah?  Try a little more politeness, next time.  And consider that blogs -- even liberal ones -- should be willing to listen to anyone's opinion without resorting to personal attacks.

              Anyway, we're on the same side, whether you like it or not.  I wish you all well.

              "The thicker the hay, the more easily it is mowed."--Alaric, Gothic chief, outside the gates of Rome, 408 A.D.

              by Romulus Augustulus on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:21:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ad hominem? (none)
                i responded to your post on its content below, and you decided not to engage. instead you chose to try and snipe about.  the more you post the more you reveal that you are not honest about who you are.  i checked your comments. i stand by my assessment.

                if you want to engage on the ideas sometime, i would welcome the discussion.  

                not that i'm sorry to see you go tonight.  if it wasn't clear before, being busted and leaving in a self-important huff just confirms it for us.

                good night, sir.  don't forget your hat.

                we're rolling back the republican crime wave

                by zeke L on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:30:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ad hominem is your ridiculous attack on motives (none)
                "Every liberal I know" -- that can't be many, or you just aren't honest.  "every five minutes" -- well, the latter, certainly.

                You're tired of reacting to the world's horrors.  Fine, then go away and leave be the rest of us who can still feel something.

              •  Troll alert. (none)
                The question marks about you were growing in my mind as I read through this portion of the thread, but this post answers them all. The hallmarks are all there.

                How soon shall we be presented with yet another droll "Troll Confession" diary? To speed up the process, let me point out that Aaron Gillies has written up a convenient template for this genre that will, I'm sure, save you a lot of trouble.

                Accountability. Without it, there is no democracy.

                by Canadian Reader on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:04:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  nobody is suggesting that Kerry run an ad (4.00)
            with President Bush's head superimposed on PVT England's body. Looking at this primarily as a campaign issue is all wrong.

            What people are suggesting - what I'm suggesting - is that we must know the full truth, the full extent, in this case, of the crimes that have been committed in our name, and why.

          •  Wrong (3.85)
            Marisacat is doing a fine job of demolishing your argument in terms of morality and ethics, as well as debunking your attempt to contextualize this so as to make is seem less gruesome and horrific than it really is.  But in terms of the political/electoral efficacy, let me add that when the Abu Ghraib story finally broke in the mainstream, it was among the oldest voters that it was most powerfully felt, and in general it's among older voters that the descent in Iraq has created the greatest reaction and revulsion.

            People who grew up with the notion that American atrocities are not something we shrug off and attempt to ignore are the people who are still most repulsed by the brutalities and degredations at Abu Ghraib and Baghram and wherever else the Bush administration, either overtly or with a bureaucratic wink and a nudge, gave free reign to the evil impulses that infect the hearts of oppressors and people with absolute power over other human beings.  It's why we're supposed to have checks and balances in environments like prisons, and it's why it's so predictable that, in a largely lawless institution like Abu Ghraib of last Oct-Jan, you would have torture and brutality.  Older people grew up with the memories, either personal or still culturally fresh, of the horrors of the Nazis, the brutalities of the Bataan death march, the vague knowledge of Stalin's "collectivization" of the Kulaks that killed millions.  We thought we were better than that, so when Calley and the photo of the napalmed girl and the other images and stories came out of Vietnam, it was more devastating for people for having punctured what by then had become a smug belief in our moral superiority.  

            We sometimes are morally superior to our military and political enemies, and older voters still remember when that was an unchallenged (and for many an unchallengable) assumption.  Vietnam ended that delusion, and for older voters, it's not a world-weariness or passive acceptance that brutalities and degradations like what happened at Abu Ghraib are the cost of doing business in world affairs.  No, they're a searing reminder of having been conned yet again by politicians who sold us a war as a moral crusade, and then they put our young men and women in situations where they succumb to the same evil impulses against which we were supposedly going to prevail.  That's eliciting incredible anger in many of these folks, and maybe, for not dissenting earlier, some real shame.  And to talk about what's going to be electorally effective, you have to acknoweldge the potentcy of that shame, and the complicity that attaches to anyone who hopes to lead our country who would disuade people from feeling justified in possessing that sense of national shame.  

            •  Forget politics (3.80)
              This is so much bigger than that.  Who are we?  asked Hersh. Who are these people that have us doing these things?

              I imagine I sound like Pollyanna to some but dammit this is not America.  Is it?

              "Armando has never been for Clark. He's a party hack sent here since the beginning to work this blog. The objective now is to have us fall in line."-Clark blog

              by Armando on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:34:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Assume You Understand... (4.00)
                ...that I'm arguing that political gain is secondary to what's right and wrong, but even in terms of political gain the above poster is incorrect.

                It's not only ethically wrong, it's not even a position that would provide an amoral political advantage.  It's wrong and stupid, not an appealing combination.

                •  I'm not even paying (none)
                  attention frankly.  I guess that's my point - I can't see arguing political strategy on this.

                  Hersh is doing what he does. The SCLM is doing or not doing what they do. Dems are doing or not doing what they do.

                  For me, and I guess it shows my naivete, I'm still in a state of shock.

                  "Armando has never been for Clark. He's a party hack sent here since the beginning to work this blog. The objective now is to have us fall in line."-Clark blog

                  by Armando on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 10:01:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunately Armando, (none)
                I imagine I sound like Pollyanna to some but dammit this is not America.  Is it?

                It is, AN America (there are many, of course, not just one).  And this is part of that history, part of the ugly side of the Iraq invasion that was visible here at home in the run-up to the invasion. There is as much inhumanity in our America as there is glorious promise, we just excel at turning our heads away from the indicators.  America is complex and always has been.  

                "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

                by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:14:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  superb, DH (4.00)
              don't know whether mr little-augustus last-caesar is still within earshot, but we really do owe him some thanks for inspiring some great responses to the idea that americans should just "get over" abu ghraib.  yours and marisacat's notable among them. (you too armando.)

              we're rolling back the republican crime wave

              by zeke L on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:42:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Every five minutes? (4.00)
            Really?  

            Look, as a former philosophy student I have to say, we're entering the realm of totally unproven and unprovable allegations once you start talking about intentionality.  It seems you think the choice of subject matter on this site works like this: since we are against Bush, given a subject X that is not good for Bush, politically, our interest in said subject only exists insofar as the subject harms Bush.  I've heard this sort of argument before - the old "Bush-bashing" canard - and it strikes me as fundamentally nonsensical.  Why would I be against Bush if he wasn't, to overgeneralize, doing a lot of harm to the country I love and betraying certain ideals we hold such as.. democracy and the rule of law?  Why else would I be against Bush?  If it weren't for that, he's just a guy like any other.

            What I'm saying is, and I guess I'm going to sound like a mushy liberal here, basically I believe most of us are here first and foremost because we're concerned for the health of our democracy, and not primarily because we're against the SOB and his cabal who are currently threatening to wreck it.  I suspect this will be quite evident when Bush is sent back to Crawford after November and this site keeps on growing instead of disappearing in a puff of smoke once Bush is no longer around to chalk up points against.  

            I think you look at peoples' motives quite differently than most liberals do.  Perhaps I see the average Joe on the street and am wary of his actions and wont to think he is only out for himself, but this is, after all, a self-selecting community.  And I don't think a group of mostly liberals and progressives really only care about horrific abuses committed by our government - utternly sickening human rights abuses - simply because they might advance us one more move on some abstract political chessboard.  

            The emperor has no brains.

            by daria g on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 12:17:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you deaf and blind? (4.00)
            "Why, if not to score some political points against Bush?"

            Because people are horrified that their nation is responsible for such activities.

            "when I see that it's the headlining thread on DailyKos as of this writing"

            The headline was Sy Hersh's speech about sodomizing children, which is news to most folks.  Sheesh.

          •  Nazis? No.... (2.00)
            I mean, I'm on your side.  I want Bush gone too, okay?  But if John Kerry likens Bush to a Nazi because of our National Guard's war crimes, Kerry will lose as sure as the sun will rise in the east.  Americans don't want to believe that their President is a Neo-Hitler, and they will repudiate the man accuses the Prez of being such.


            If a comparison with the Nazis were made, you would have to note that any Nazi who behaved to the Jews (and others) as the American soldiers have to the Iraquis would have joined them in a concentration camp.  While the Nazis wanted to exterminate Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, they did not permit not perform such acts as have been performed in Abu Graib.  The only thing that the perpertrators of both crimes have in common is that they claimed to me "only following orders".  As pure and simple fact, the Americans have behaved in a worse manner than the Nazis.  There is no escaping that....

            Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae But remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie. We can neither lov

            by Truckle on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:21:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Worse crimes (none)

              Murdering women and children by gas, bullets or starvation is worse than raping them.  The number of dead and violated has some relation to the evil of the deed as well.  

              Hopefully we'll never know if Bush is another Hitler.   There are many lesser dictators and evildoers to whom he could be more accurately compared.  In domestic terms, he'd be somewhere past Hugo Chavez but not quite Echeverría (who ordered the Tlalteloco massacre in Mexico City).  Abroad, he'd be closer to Pinochet and gaining on Slobodan Milosevic.  

              •  Hugo Chavez? Perhaps you've read too much SCLM (none)
                Chavez is a dictator the way Allende was a dictator.
                •  Chávez, Allende (none)
                   
                  I'm not saying that Chávez is a dictator, but some Venezuelans worry that he's well on his way to becoming one.  Sound familiar?  
                  •  Some rich Venezuelan elites. (none)
                    "I'm not saying that Chávez is a dictator, but some Venezuelans worry that he's well on his way to becoming one."

                    That's not what you said -- your post did not refer to what "some" Venezuelans think, but rather to what you think.  I don't trust anyone who uses the word "some" that way, or who disowns what he writes the way you have.  What do you think of Chávez, and why?

                    "Sound familiar?"

                    Don't be coy; if you want to say something, just say it.

            •  worse (none)
              is as unproductive an argument that one can enter into when discussing war crimes.  Its that kind of thinking that the likes of Bush and Perle and Wolfowitz and Sharon thrive on for their brand of xenophobic militarism to catch hold.

              However, your point that the Nazis did not engage in this kind of sexualized torture (mostly out of the worst kind of racist disdain) is an important one and duly noted.

              Therefore I felt compelled to rate your post a "3" since I don't think it deserves to be completely marginalized.    

              "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

              by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:22:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pastly valid (none)
                However, your point that the Nazis did not engage in this kind of sexualized torture (mostly out of the worst kind of racist disdain) is an important one and duly noted.


                Not just racist distain but distain for homosexuality.  I do agree however that my post was/is not a particularly productive one.  And apologies, as this is not one either.

                Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae But remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie. We can neither lov

                by Truckle on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 07:14:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Our broken society (4.00)
            Romulus Augustulus said, "In the meantime, Abu Ghraib is a sure-fire political loser . . . for us.  Your average American will simply put his/her fingers in his/her ears and go  "Na na na na na I'm not LISTening na na..."

            I've been mulling over what broke in our society since the Abu Ghirab torture broke and 1/3 of the American people were able to rationalize that torture and continue as if nothing happen. I saw more of this behavior when some of the far right was saying in the last week that cancelling elections was fine with them.

            We have tens of millions of people in this society that now believe American torture and totalitarianism is fine with them. Do you know what problems that is going to cause in the coming decades in this society?

            We have to shame these indiviuals out of these beliefs. Eisenhower marched German civilians through the concentration camps so they would not be able to deny the horrific crimes the Nazis committed in future decades. That act has prevented the holocaust deniers any ground to perpetuate their hate speech.

            We have to march our entire society past the evidence of these American crimes as well. We need to shame those who support American neo-conservatism at any cost. Neo-cons must have their belief paradigms of innocence shattered. They must be forced to deal with the real-world consequences of their actions.

            •  What do you mean "in the coming decades" (4.00)
              We've had them for a long time.  Have you ever listened to a discussion about prison reform, about the draconian drug laws, about the death penalty in this country?

              Have you heard your fellow citizens discuss the deaths of immigrants coming across the Texas and Arizona borders in closed containers?  Would you like me to tell you what your fellow citizens have said to me as I've demonstrated and fliered and tabled against the Iraqi sanctions that killed so many Iraqi children and escalated the hardships on Iraqi citizens throughout the 1990's.  Have you heard what war supporters said about those of us that protested the plans for invasion in the spring of 2003? Have you heard what young men say to and about the women who refuse their sexual advances?  Have you ever listened to your neighbors talk about gays and lesbians? For that matter, have you ever been in a male locker room these days? Or to a college fraternity party?

              I've been on a lot of college campuses in my lifetime, and to enough backyard barbeques in the "nice suburbs" and I can tell you, this is not a problem for the future.

              Violence and the demonization of "others" is a very consistent thread that runs through our society and has since before we've even been a country.  

              "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

              by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Why, indeed? (none)
            Why, if not to score some political points against Bush?

            Because people are outraged about it?  Its far broader than a political scorekeeping exercise.

            "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

            by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:06:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're wrong, but I agree with you (none)
            I think the reason you're seeing Abu Ghraib and the torture discussed so much on the blogs is because it is a huge "gotcha" for the morality/values junk put out by Bush & Co, and also because we're all wrestling with how fellow Americans could do this.  

            Both reasons lead to lots of talking about it, but the second is especially important - as decent people we're horrified, and in some way it is as though something we believe in has died.  We're in mourning - and we're working through it.  And we don't have closure; the full public exposure and discussion, let  alone any investigation or trial.

            But don't think this isn't impacting lots of non-bloggers.  Those I talk with are just as thunderstruck as I am.  (I don't talk with Rush, and he's clearly an exception, thinking this is just dandy.)

            You're right there are lots of atrocities around the world every day, but this one speaks directly to our morality and actions as the superpower in the world.

            You are also right in the sense that what gets public attention is distorted.  We kill 10's of thousands of people each year through medical errors, car accidents, etc but having 3,000 people die on 9/11 causes vastly more upheaval in what we talk about and do.  Maybe the focus on Abu Ghraib is because it conveys such a terrible story about what Americans value, and we all feel that.

            But how this gets rolled out is incredibly important.  I am nowhere near skilled enough to know how to do it, but I know it will be like handling dynamite.  Kerry has a particularly tough job of deciding when to comment and finding a way of avoiding blowback; you're right that certain kinds of attacks on Bush will not work.

      •  bull (4.00)
        "Problem is, Bush is not PERSONALLY responsible for these atrocities"

        Yes, he certainly is -- there were his personal directions regarding the Geneva Conventions, and explicit White House policies that translated into interrogation techniques used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.  Bush is personally responsible for waging the war that led to these events, and for covering up the scandal, trying to pin the whole thing on "bad apples", and proclaiming that Rumsfeld is "doing a superb job".

        So to hell with your pathetic apologetics that would make Hitler innocent of pushing Jews into ovens because he didn't personally do the pushing  or write an order that included the word "oven".

      •  Why Are Trolls So Stupid? (none)
        Can't you folks dig up a smart one.  One not so obviously BLATANT?

        Give it up...

        You'll lose..

        You're already MARGINALIZED.....

        Not Bush's fault.....

        Don't play the screams of raped kids....

        It is so obvious the Bushies are leaving skidmarks in their underwear on this.

        And the more the little trollys tell us not to go there, the more scared I know they are.

        You fuckers give yourselves away EVERYTIME.

        So again I ask, why are trolls so stupid?  

        Is it genetic, ya think?

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 06:58:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't want the videos released (none)
        for political gain. I want them released, with the hope, however slight, that the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
        And, no, Bush did not personally perpetrate these crimes, but his lawyers did write the infamous memo allowing him to ignore the Geneva Conventions and Congress.
        You might argue that he never saw that memo, but that would mean his lawyers are out of control.
        I personally think he knew.
        Whatever. This happened on his watch, and he bears at least SOME culpability for it.
        we can quibble about what % of this tragedy is Bush's responsibility, what % is the soldiers', what % is the commanders', etc, but all evidence needs to be put out there into the light of day.
        This nation has a HUGE dark side, and it has been allowed to get that big because of denial. we as a nation have to finally face our wrongs.
        that is the only we way we can ever have a hope of healing our national soul.  

        "this will be our reply to violence:to make music more intensely, more beautifully, more devotedly than ever before." --Leonard Bernstein

        by Minnesota Deb on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:30:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (none)
        Here's the thing.

        The Iraqis know.  They know already and they've told others.  Our enemies are using our own propaganda, videos and pictures against us.  They know.  Why did they shell Abu Ghraib 6 times?  (The most recent one, IRC, was this week.)  

        Are you familiar with the Nuremberg trials?  Many Nazi's were hung and they themselves never killed a single person.  But they were in charge and they knew or should have known.  

        You don't have to say "OK" to rape or torture to be guilty you simply have to let it happen.  Sometimes you can be guilty because you should have known but didn't -- you should have known and should have done something but did not.    

        No the SecDef may not be guilty.  But someone above the rank of Sergeant surely is.  

    •  ignore him, he's a troll obviously (3.00)

      Hark! Hark! the Clarke!

      by Errol on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:12:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not a troll (3.66)
        here we go again - we were discussing this on kid oakland's diary last night.

        trolls are the types who don't carry on any kind of real discussion, they just spew vituperative nonsense.

        little augustus here isn't one of those. disingenous, yes.  clearly he doesn't share either liberal or american values.

        i don't think there's any point in discussing things with him further, but he is polite and talking to us. engage him or not as you like.

        but everybody please refrain from zero ratings - even if it's only to preserve the responses to his atavistic cynicism.

        we're rolling back the republican crime wave

        by zeke L on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 09:20:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's not a troll, just confused. (none)
      •  sock puppet, ignore it (none)
        •  sockpuppet (4.00)
          with sockpuppet(s) uprating himself.

          "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

          by colleen on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 05:15:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site