what the hell was the objective?
While I have been against the war in Iraq from its outset, I have never confused my respect to the troops. They don't get to pick where and who to fight. But I'm growing more and more disillusioned and somewhat embarrassed when I hear stories of abuse against POWs.
Andrew Sullivan.com had a recent update that spoke of abuses against POWs at the hands of American soldiers:
Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public . . . Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat.
One word: unacceptable.
This is not a "bleeding heart liberal" cry, so please save that flailing, one-dimensional retort for another day. We can't call ourselves good guys when we're acting like the bad guys.
As Americans, we must universally agree to the principle of basic human rights for our enemies as well as our allies, despite our disagreements about the merits of the war in Iraq.
I've heard the arguments against me already:
They'll do it to us.
Or worse.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
Haven't we always said the difference with Americans is we hold ourselves to a higher standard?
After reading the accounts of Abu Graib and beyond, I'm beginning to wonder. It's not hyperbole when I say I have serious doubts that this administration has any grip on the true meaning of leadership. Bush and Rumsfeld are to blame here. You can't pin this on state and local governments this time. They have lost control of the military leadership. I'm with Andrew Sullivan: Time for you to go, Rummy.
What's scary about these human rights violations is nobody seems to care; least of all this administration. Heaven forbid something as pesky as human rights for Iraqis should get in the way of their objective.
What the hell was the objective again?
Andrew Sullivan.com had a recent update that spoke of abuses against POWs at the hands of American soldiers:
Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public . . . Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat.
One word: unacceptable.
This is not a "bleeding heart liberal" cry, so please save that flailing, one-dimensional retort for another day. We can't call ourselves good guys when we're acting like the bad guys.
As Americans, we must universally agree to the principle of basic human rights for our enemies as well as our allies, despite our disagreements about the merits of the war in Iraq.
I've heard the arguments against me already:
They'll do it to us.
Or worse.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
Haven't we always said the difference with Americans is we hold ourselves to a higher standard?
After reading the accounts of Abu Graib and beyond, I'm beginning to wonder. It's not hyperbole when I say I have serious doubts that this administration has any grip on the true meaning of leadership. Bush and Rumsfeld are to blame here. You can't pin this on state and local governments this time. They have lost control of the military leadership. I'm with Andrew Sullivan: Time for you to go, Rummy.
What's scary about these human rights violations is nobody seems to care; least of all this administration. Heaven forbid something as pesky as human rights for Iraqis should get in the way of their objective.
What the hell was the objective again?
