Jackson Free Press

In an editorial, The New York Times exposes the strategy to protect the White House from prisoner-abuse fall-out: "The administration and its Republican allies appear to have settled on a way to deflect attention from the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: accuse Democrats and the news media of overreacting, then pile all of the remaining responsibility onto officers in the battlefield, far away from President Bush and his political team. That cynical approach was on display yesterday morning in the second Abu Ghraib hearing in the Senate, a body that finally seemed to be assuming its responsibility for overseeing the executive branch after a year of silently watching the bungled Iraq occupation." [...]

"These silly arguments not only obscure the despicable treatment of the prisoners, most of whom are not guilty of anything, but also ignore the evidence so far. While some of the particularly sick examples of sexual degradation may turn out to be isolated events, General Taguba's testimony, and a Red Cross report from Iraq, made it plain that the abuse of prisoners by the American military and intelligence agencies was systemic. The Red Cross said prisoners of military intelligence were routinely stripped, with their hands bound behind their backs, and posed with women's underwear over their heads. It said they were 'sometimes photographed in this position.'"

"The Red Cross report, published by The Wall Street Journal, said that Iraqi prisoners — 70 to 90 percent of whom apparently did nothing wrong — were routinely abused when they were arrested, and their wives and mothers threatened. The Iraqi police, who operate under American control and are eventually supposed to help replace the occupation forces, are even worse — sending those who won't pay bribes to prison camps, and beating and burning prisoners, according to the report."

To their credit, some Republicans are not following this ill-conceived and transparent strategy to lessen the signficance of this tragedy, including Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham. You really can grieve for American losses, pray for our soldiers, love your country, and admit and repair our mistakes all at the same time, and these men know it. Good for them.

Hooray for courage and integrity.

Previous Comments

ID

137031

Comment

It should be made clear that many Republicans, in elected office or not, are not playing this apologist game of blaming the messinger instead of taking responsibility. Read this piece in Salon today about Republicans who are fed up and willing to speak up about it: "A funny thing happened on Capitol Hill last week in the days before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, no longer smirking with the certainty he had the only true answers to every question in the world, was hauled before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify on the appalling revelations of torture and humiliation of prisoners in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison: The Republican Senate leadership en masse broke ranks with President Bush and said so." "The Abu Ghraib revelations unleashed a pent-up tidal wave of resentment at the cavalier way that Bush and co. have kept congressional leaders in the dark over crucial and highly charged issues, one after another. Lawmakers are appalled that Rumsfeld sat on a detailed report from Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba about the Abu Ghraib situation for weeks and that they had to learn so much from, of all places, the Web site of the one information source that good Republican conservatives despise even more than the New York Times -- National Public Radio. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was furious that his committee had been kept in the dark too. 'That's unacceptable,' he told reporters on May 5." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/12/hill/index_np.html Cheers. If there's ever been time for bi-partisanship, it is now. Kerry said today that he would consider Republicans John McCain or John Warner as Defense Secretary. Personally, I wish McCain would be his running mate, but I realize that probably won't happen. But such difficult international and domestic times require extraordinary measures from our leaders -- and a true effort at bipartisanship and removing dangerous ideologues from power, regardless of party, would be so welcome. The current administration has created such a mess at home and in the world that we need the best of both parties to step forward and work together to clean it up. It's going to take time, so we need people who are willing to risk their political careers to do what it is right. That sure sounds like McCain to me these days. If I was a Republican, I think I would line up behind McCain and take back the party from the folks trying to flush it down the ideological toilet. It really could be the party of Lincoln again -- and that would certainly leave the Dems scrambling to get their own house in order. Imagine: the two parties (and perhaps others) fighting to be the party of what's good in the world -- not the party of how to increase corporate profits. I don't agree with McCain on every issue, but he sure is my hero of late. Give me an M! ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-12T14:07:14-06:00

ID

137032

Comment

It seems I'm not the only Bush critic hankering for a Kerry-McCain ticket. New York Times today: Despite weeks of steadfast rejections from Senator John McCain, some prominent Democrats are angling for him to run for vice president alongside Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, creating a bipartisan ticket that they say would instantly transform the presidential race. The enthusiasm of Democrats for Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, is so high that even some who have been mentioned as possible Kerry running mates ó including Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator ó are spinning scenarios about a "unity government," effectively giving Mr. Kerry a green light to reach across the political aisle and extend an offer. "Senator McCain would not have to leave his party," Mr. Kerrey said. "He could remain a Republican, would be given some authority over selection of cabinet people. The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,' " the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, which Mr. McCain has said he opposes. Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Mr. Kerry, said such a ticket "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees signing A-Rod," referring to Alex Rodriguez, the team's star third baseman. Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, "continues to be interested in" Mr. McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran whom Kerry aides describe as the candidate's best friend in the Senate, as a running mate, said one longtime Democratic official who works for the Kerry campaign. But the official said the plan was unrealistic, because Mr. McCain "won't do it." In an interview on Friday, Mr. McCain said, "I have totally ruled it out." Even so, Democrats say a bipartisan Kerry-McCain ticket, featuring two decorated Vietnam War veterans from different parties and regions of the country, would give them a powerful edge in the debate over who can best lead the nation in the war on terror. "It would be a dream team," Mr. Lehane said. In today's screwed-up world, the idea of a coalition government, of sorts, in the U.S. is so appealing. Just imagine if the extremists could be silenced because of a moderate, bipartisan White House, with two men at the top to balance each other out. Personally, I would get more excited about Kerry's campaign if McCain were No. 2. It would feel as if he could get a lot done when he got in there, because the tendency to bicker simply due to party wouldn't be so strong. Talk about a way to start mending the ideological wounds the current administration has inflicted on the U.S.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-15T14:28:04-06:00

ID

137033

Comment

AND, if this happened, it would separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. That is, we would see just who is too ideologically inclined, on the left or the right, to sign onto the idea of a true bi-partisan spirit. Just who would rather split the baby in half than try to strengthen the nation? Who, ahem corporate lapdogs, would benefit more from the splits than from unity? It sure would be interesting to find out. Of course, I would predict massive ideological attacks on McCain from the right should this happen, even as many "liberals" (which the extreme right has redefined to many anything left of the extreme right) want a bipartisan government as this article above indicates. Of course, I'd expect some rancor from the actual far left -- perhaps the same ideologues who encourage Nader to keep playing the spoiler with so much at stake.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-15T14:31:03-06:00