Abu Ghraib, the Department of Defense, Wall Street and just about every other institution you can think of, are being derided as symptoms of a debased, faded civilization.I think Rob's point on how what was done by Hitler or Stalin was worse than Abu Ghraib is "true", but the difference that apologists for Don Rumsfeld miss on this point is that it was our military. Rob is wrong, this is a big deal. He agrees that the situation was horrid and Rumsfeld and Co deserve criticism, but even though attention has been focused on this one prison, it still does not take away that our soldiers did this and did it knowingly. Another person's crime is horrible, but a crime your commit yourself is then end of one's moral stature.
To which I reply, stop with the crazy talk. That argument is emptier than the soul food line at the Republican National Convention.
Look, I'm not saying things are super terrifically splendidly great, but let's get serious. The Abu Ghraib torture -- or fraternity hazing, as Rush Limbaugh calls it -- isn't anything we didn't do in other wars. I shudder to think what we did with the few Japanese we managed to get our hands on. We just didn't have tiny little digital cameras and the Internet to duplicate them a bazillion times.
Monday, May 24, 2004
No Big Deal?
Rob Daumeyer at the Cincinnati Business Courier writes on why Abu Ghraib became a bigger deal that he thinks it deserves:
Boycott B Website is 'Suspended'
The website "www.boycottcincinnati.org" only has this comment as a banner, "This Account Has Been Suspended." Nate Livingston must be on vacation.
Bush Speech, Little New
There were a few dates that he committed to meeting for elections in Iraq, but other than wanting to demolish the Abu Ghraib, there was nothing new. He was a little bit more specific about what he wants, but how he plans on doing it, well that is still a mystery.
His big lie was saying that on June 30th Iraq will have "full sovereignty." That is just crap and he and everyone else knows that. He knows that having 138,000 troops in Iraq under his control means it is in no way a sovereign county.
Will the media keep the pressure on Bush if what he said does not come to pass? We'll just have to wait and see.
Change any opinions? Nope. It was not carried by the 4 networks, so few likely were to have seen it.
His big lie was saying that on June 30th Iraq will have "full sovereignty." That is just crap and he and everyone else knows that. He knows that having 138,000 troops in Iraq under his control means it is in no way a sovereign county.
Will the media keep the pressure on Bush if what he said does not come to pass? We'll just have to wait and see.
Change any opinions? Nope. It was not carried by the 4 networks, so few likely were to have seen it.
Kill the Messenger
We get the typical anti-free press idiot in the Letters tot he Enquirer (2nd letter):
He is right about one thing: the US government is just handing this crap to the media. That is however not the media's fault. If he wants to blame the bad actions of the military on someone, why not try blaming it on the military? I myself blame the civilian leadership of the military, which is one of many reasons I do not support this Administration.
Showing photos aids the enemyI guess Mr. Banfield prefers only the news that helps out the Army by hiding the truth. We all know that the truth kills people after all. An honest man dies first is what I always say.
The photographs of abuse of 'Iraqi detainees' by American soldiers are a sad tale. Having served in the United States Air Force for 11 years and now serving in the Kentucky Army National Guard, I know this is not the norm for U.S. troops. I'm not excusing their actions by any means and disciplinary actions have already begun.
But should a man, a non-combatant there to help rebuild a nation in turmoil be decapitated for crimes of others? What is the media's hand in this matter? Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows the answer. By non-stop coverage and viewing of those prison photos the media has put every American in Iraq and probably in most Middle Eastern countries at risk. ?
Irresponsible journalism is aiding and abetting the enemy. Please stop handing them ammunition.
Steven Banfield
Taylor Mill
He is right about one thing: the US government is just handing this crap to the media. That is however not the media's fault. If he wants to blame the bad actions of the military on someone, why not try blaming it on the military? I myself blame the civilian leadership of the military, which is one of many reasons I do not support this Administration.
Prophetic Woodward
Well, Bob Woodward did not conjure up the claim in his book,“Plan of Attack,” that the Saudis planned on lowering the price of oil in time for the election. He got it from their US Ambassador. So, here starts their "contribution" to the Bush reelection campaign. There may not have been a provable "deal," but Bush is the Saudi choice for President. Their financial contribution to his campaign goes far more than money for attack ads, it goes right into his manipulation of the perceptions of the American people. When the price of gas comes down, what will Bush say? His tax cuts did the trick, but of course. Now, he would be right, if by tax cuts he really meant his personal ties with the oppressive anti-human rights government of Saudi Arabia. A government that turned a blind eye to Anti-American terrorists brewing within its own borders. That is a foreign policy only Henry Kissinger could love.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Details
The keyword to remember about Bush's speech on Iraq tomorrow is details. The media has that word all over the place when describing what he will be talking about. Will he break with tradition and get specific? I seriously doubt it. If we get anything more than "stay the course" I will be surprised. I believe though that if he does not start giving specifics on what his short and long term plans are on Iraq, he will be in trouble, even with many Republicans.
Bush can't just punt on Iraq until November. He has to survive a long hot summer of militant attacks. He must lay his cards out there. I predict he will try what used to be called a “limited, modified hang out.” He will say stuff that his supporters will eat up as detail, but in reality is only a small portion of what BushCo is planning to do in Iraq. That of course assumes they have any plans other than getting relected.
The speech tomorrow is nothing but a political rally disguised as Presidential address, but how will the media react? Is the bar set where reporters actually expect Bush to say something more than the usual "stay the course" and pat the military on the back dogma? I don't know if they will be suckers or not, but my feeling is that they might pounce if doesn't through them at something new to write about.
Why is Bush scared of making this a full fledged national address from the Oval Office? If he really was planning on a change to his policy would he not actually ask for network air time, which he has not, and start setting things up in a true Presidential forum, not a campaign forum? It is just a sign of the double talk from BushCo. They call themselves strong and decisive leaders, but they don’t really want to announce anything, just make people think they have, while not really changing anything. Is that the actions of anything more than a manipulator?
Bush can't just punt on Iraq until November. He has to survive a long hot summer of militant attacks. He must lay his cards out there. I predict he will try what used to be called a “limited, modified hang out.” He will say stuff that his supporters will eat up as detail, but in reality is only a small portion of what BushCo is planning to do in Iraq. That of course assumes they have any plans other than getting relected.
The speech tomorrow is nothing but a political rally disguised as Presidential address, but how will the media react? Is the bar set where reporters actually expect Bush to say something more than the usual "stay the course" and pat the military on the back dogma? I don't know if they will be suckers or not, but my feeling is that they might pounce if doesn't through them at something new to write about.
Why is Bush scared of making this a full fledged national address from the Oval Office? If he really was planning on a change to his policy would he not actually ask for network air time, which he has not, and start setting things up in a true Presidential forum, not a campaign forum? It is just a sign of the double talk from BushCo. They call themselves strong and decisive leaders, but they don’t really want to announce anything, just make people think they have, while not really changing anything. Is that the actions of anything more than a manipulator?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)