8 airplanes, 6 cities, in 4 days. Tough week of business travel.
And to top it off I had to watch the Al Gore speech to MoveOn.org. Okay, I didn't have to. But I am a newsjunkie. So I had to.
Vice President Gore gave a passionate left-wing speech to a stridently partisan left-wing organization, MoveOn.org. (If you remember, this is a left-wing website that started up during President Clinton's impeachment to defend the president. The concept was "it's only about sex, there's nothing to see here, let's move on..."). The speech was an attack on President Bush, and his Attorney General John Ashcroft, and their record on civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11. It was all one-sided of course. There was no real recognition that we are at war. Only rebuke of our reaction to war. And it was distorted of course. Gore painted every issue in the worst possible interpretation.
He closed his speech with a recap of the 2000 election. He opined that, while he did his duty by conceding the election for the good of the country, he had no idea that the Bush administration would trash out the "rule of law".
As to style - Gore was his usual stiff self. The Iron Man.
But he was more the Irony Man. Irony abounds in his speech.
Let's start with recapping the 2000 election in a speech to a group called "MoveOn". I guess he's not moving on.
Gore railed at the adminstration about not providing more airline security in spite of warnings about terrorists wanting to hijack aircraft. The irony, of course, is that Gore chaired a Presidential Commission to improve airline security. 19 men proved his commission's work to be woefully and fatally ineffective.
Gore railed at the administration for poor treatment of immigrants since 9-11. Improper searches and detaintments and such. The irony, of course, is that Gore spearheaded an effort for the Democrats in 1996 called "Citizenship USA" to pressure the INS to circumvent immigration laws in order to get more immigrants eligible to vote in time for the election. (see this article) They bypassed background checks and rushed naturalization for up to a million immigrants to get them eligible to vote. Who knows who they let in. TheClinton-Gore administration's trashing of immigration laws is directly responsible for allowing terrorist to infiltrate America and set up terrorist cells in our midst. All in the name of political correctness and Democratic votes.
Gore quoted a recent study that indicated that Al Qaida membership has reformed (after their devasting defeat, I would add), in Afghanistan to a membership of approx. 18,000. He was implying that Bush had not succeeded in stopping Al Qaida. The irony, of course, is the Clinton-Gore administration's total inattention to terrorism for 8 years while Bin Laden was running 10,000 terrorist through his training camps and dispersing them throughout the world. It was those cells that formed in the 90's that have allowed them to regroup after the pounding that Bush gave them.
Oh, the irony. Actually, the absurdity.
I have not doubt who I would want leading the War on Terrorism, that was not of our choosing but was forced on us. Bush and Ashcroft. Or Gore and Reno. No doubt of that at all. I'm very thankful for the results of the 2000 election. I'm moving on.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Patient Justice
Kudos to the State of Oklahoma for their perserverance for a decade in the prosecution of Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 169 people. Though already convicted and sentenced to life in a federal court, the state prosecuted as well with the power to impose the death penalty.
Some thoughts:
Nichols is definitely guilty of an abhorrent crime. I hope this second conviction gives some comfort to victims families.
The judge limited testimony regarding other conspirators who helped McVeigh, including middle eastern connections. I'm sure this was helpful in the narrow interest of convicting Nichols. It was not helpful broadly for Americans to learn the full nature of the conspiracy to bomb the building. There is clear evidence that Nichols met in the Phillipines with terrorists with Iraqi and Al Qaida connections. When is that going to get examined in public? And why don't more Americans know about that connection.
One hidden tidbit I learned by reading news accounts closely is that Nichols was convicted of killing 160 people and 1 fetus. Killing a fetus is a convictable offense? How can that be when it happens 4,400 times a day in America under the banner of choice?
Some thoughts:
Nichols is definitely guilty of an abhorrent crime. I hope this second conviction gives some comfort to victims families.
The judge limited testimony regarding other conspirators who helped McVeigh, including middle eastern connections. I'm sure this was helpful in the narrow interest of convicting Nichols. It was not helpful broadly for Americans to learn the full nature of the conspiracy to bomb the building. There is clear evidence that Nichols met in the Phillipines with terrorists with Iraqi and Al Qaida connections. When is that going to get examined in public? And why don't more Americans know about that connection.
One hidden tidbit I learned by reading news accounts closely is that Nichols was convicted of killing 160 people and 1 fetus. Killing a fetus is a convictable offense? How can that be when it happens 4,400 times a day in America under the banner of choice?
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Let the Witnesses Speak
I thought they were all finally going to get to speak. The witnesses in the Oklahoma bombing case. I was wrong.
Just to recap: Terry Nichols is being tried in a state court for murder for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was already convicted in a federal court and is serving life. The state of Oklahoma wants him also for the deaths of their citizens. Nichols defense includes the argument that McVeigh had numerous other co-conspirators.
I absolutely think that Nichols conspired in the bombing, is guilty, and should have gotten the death penalty.
However, I'm also convinced that McVeigh had other conspirators with him in Oklahoma City that day and I want them brought to justice also. I finished reading Jayna Davis's definitive book "The Third Terrorist" and I think it's clear and convincing on the presence of Middle Eastern terrorists in the plot that day. If you haven't read it, you need to. Lot's of witnesses to Middle Eastern men with McVeigh. None of them called to testify. Why?
It's important to remember a few facts:
1. Nichols was in Kansas on that day, April 19th. Did he conspire to build the bomb. Absolutely, I'm convinced of that. Davis presents the evidence that Nichols travelled to the Phillipines to learn bombmaking from Ramsi Yousef. Yousef built the bomb for the World Trade Center in 1993 and was connected to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. And Nichols spent time with him. But he was not present when the bomb was constructed and delivered.
2. There are witnesses that saw McVeigh with other people in OKC that morning. Several witnesses. They got to testify in Nichols trial. A quote from the Associated Press in USA Today:
If it wasn't Nichols, and it wasn't, who was it who helped McVeigh deliver the bomb downtown.
3. There are ample witnesses who place McVeigh in Elohim City, a white supremacist group in Oklahoma before the bombing. More co-conspirators. You can read about them in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's excellent book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton". But you can't read about them in the trial transcripts of this trial. Why? The judge said so:
No substance? Why not hear from the witnesses and let the jury make that decision?
When are we going to get to hear from these witnesses under oath?
Just to recap: Terry Nichols is being tried in a state court for murder for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was already convicted in a federal court and is serving life. The state of Oklahoma wants him also for the deaths of their citizens. Nichols defense includes the argument that McVeigh had numerous other co-conspirators.
I absolutely think that Nichols conspired in the bombing, is guilty, and should have gotten the death penalty.
However, I'm also convinced that McVeigh had other conspirators with him in Oklahoma City that day and I want them brought to justice also. I finished reading Jayna Davis's definitive book "The Third Terrorist" and I think it's clear and convincing on the presence of Middle Eastern terrorists in the plot that day. If you haven't read it, you need to. Lot's of witnesses to Middle Eastern men with McVeigh. None of them called to testify. Why?
It's important to remember a few facts:
1. Nichols was in Kansas on that day, April 19th. Did he conspire to build the bomb. Absolutely, I'm convinced of that. Davis presents the evidence that Nichols travelled to the Phillipines to learn bombmaking from Ramsi Yousef. Yousef built the bomb for the World Trade Center in 1993 and was connected to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. And Nichols spent time with him. But he was not present when the bomb was constructed and delivered.
2. There are witnesses that saw McVeigh with other people in OKC that morning. Several witnesses. They got to testify in Nichols trial. A quote from the Associated Press in USA Today:
Defense attorneys allege that other coconspirators gave McVeigh substantial help in planning the bombing. They put several witnesses on the stand who said they saw McVeigh with another man who was not Nichols in the days and even the moments before the bombing.
If it wasn't Nichols, and it wasn't, who was it who helped McVeigh deliver the bomb downtown.
3. There are ample witnesses who place McVeigh in Elohim City, a white supremacist group in Oklahoma before the bombing. More co-conspirators. You can read about them in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's excellent book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton". But you can't read about them in the trial transcripts of this trial. Why? The judge said so:
An April 21 ruling by Taylor kept the defense from calling hundreds of other planned witnesses. He said there was no substance to defense allegations that McVeigh had links to a gang of white supremacist bank robbers and residents of Elohim City, a separatist enclave in eastern Oklahoma.
No substance? Why not hear from the witnesses and let the jury make that decision?
When are we going to get to hear from these witnesses under oath?
Hillary visits the VRWC
Re: Hillary Clinton's appearance on Fox News Network's Sunday show this morning:
- Her 1st appearance at the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Did I hear her right, that she agreed with me on the handover of power in Iraq on June 30th? In early April I was advocating that we keep the date. Dems (and most Republicans) at that time were jabbering that there was no way we could turnover power on that date with the situation on the ground there. I made the argument to my friend that the wildcard in the argument was George W. Bush. The man has an iron core. He set the date, and he wasn't going to deviate. June 30th it was going to be. I also made the argument that doing so would disarm his opponents. I'm sure I heard Sen. Clinton say this morning that we were going to meet the date.
- It was the height of political irony seeing Hillary paired on the show with Sen. Lindsay Graham. They were having a political lovefest of bipartisanship over Iraq. Closing ranks for the sake of the troops. Awesome! The irony: Graham was one of the leading House managers presenting the case to the Senate that President Clinton should be convicted and removed from office! Time marches on in politics, I guess.
- Her 1st appearance at the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Did I hear her right, that she agreed with me on the handover of power in Iraq on June 30th? In early April I was advocating that we keep the date. Dems (and most Republicans) at that time were jabbering that there was no way we could turnover power on that date with the situation on the ground there. I made the argument to my friend that the wildcard in the argument was George W. Bush. The man has an iron core. He set the date, and he wasn't going to deviate. June 30th it was going to be. I also made the argument that doing so would disarm his opponents. I'm sure I heard Sen. Clinton say this morning that we were going to meet the date.
- It was the height of political irony seeing Hillary paired on the show with Sen. Lindsay Graham. They were having a political lovefest of bipartisanship over Iraq. Closing ranks for the sake of the troops. Awesome! The irony: Graham was one of the leading House managers presenting the case to the Senate that President Clinton should be convicted and removed from office! Time marches on in politics, I guess.
Monday, May 17, 2004
"Do you take this woman" - or is it man?
They're popping the champaign corks in Massachusetts as they legalize gay marriage - the first in the nation to do so. In honor of this historic event I thought I would finally comment. Here are my thoughts, in brief:
1. I believe that homosexuality is probably nature driven rather than nuture and is hormonally/chemically driven rather than genetic. However, whether it is a result of nature or through some developmental factor of parenting or environment - it's not the individual's choice in most cases. And I believe that individuals, who did not make a choice of who to fall in love with, want naturally to get married.
2. I also believe that the Bible is clear on the topic and that marriage is designed, biologically, for a man and a woman. Thousands of years of history in all civilization supports this concept.
3. I also recognize that the first two are in conflict. I've resolved it for myself this way.
- I believe in civil marriages for everyone as a state sanctioned function. I believe encouraging monogamy is in the best interest of a stable society. Getting married at the courthouse is fine with me. I believe that represents the conservative position politically as I know it.
- I also believe churches have an absolute right to set doctrine on the issues of marriage in the church, ordination, membership, etc. I believe it is incompatible with Christian doctrine for gays to get married in the church or hold leadership positions. I'm ok with membership. But all that is for each church hierarchy to work out independent of the state.
That's just how I've worked it out. You're on your own.
1. I believe that homosexuality is probably nature driven rather than nuture and is hormonally/chemically driven rather than genetic. However, whether it is a result of nature or through some developmental factor of parenting or environment - it's not the individual's choice in most cases. And I believe that individuals, who did not make a choice of who to fall in love with, want naturally to get married.
2. I also believe that the Bible is clear on the topic and that marriage is designed, biologically, for a man and a woman. Thousands of years of history in all civilization supports this concept.
3. I also recognize that the first two are in conflict. I've resolved it for myself this way.
- I believe in civil marriages for everyone as a state sanctioned function. I believe encouraging monogamy is in the best interest of a stable society. Getting married at the courthouse is fine with me. I believe that represents the conservative position politically as I know it.
- I also believe churches have an absolute right to set doctrine on the issues of marriage in the church, ordination, membership, etc. I believe it is incompatible with Christian doctrine for gays to get married in the church or hold leadership positions. I'm ok with membership. But all that is for each church hierarchy to work out independent of the state.
That's just how I've worked it out. You're on your own.
Who was really lying?
For months now Democrats in general, and the Kerry campaign in particular have been advancing two arguments:
1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida
The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.
Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.
Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.
But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:
1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.
2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.
3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.
I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.
So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.
1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida
The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.
Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.
Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.
But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:
1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.
2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.
3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.
I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.
So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.
Squeamish Americans
I want to see the video of the Nicholas Berg execution by Al Qaida in Iraq. I've attempted unsuccessfully to find it and view it on the internet.
I'm deeply puzzled by our news media's filter on war issues. Prison mistreatment photos take by American GI's from Abu Grhaib are ok to show over and over again. Why because they are not too gruesome and are important. But Nicholas Berg's execution by Islamic terrorists can't be shown because it's too gruesome and would offend the sensibilities of civilized people. Same with the video of Daniel Pearl's slaughter by Islamic terrorists. Same with the graphic video of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers after being attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Are we getting the picture here? American mistreatment - not too gruesome. Islamic terrorists activities - too gruesome to show. That should give you all the perspective you need. As Sean Hannity said on his radio program all week, it should define for you the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.
But it's not enough. I think Americans are way too squeamish on this and should suck it up and view the videos so that we fully know what this War on Terrorism is all about. The full depth of it. I frankly don't have patience with my fellow countrymen on this point. We're going to commit troops to fight and die for a cause, but we can't be bothered to be offended by viewing the reality of that war?
I see it as analogous to "The Passion of the Christ". Sure I already knew the story of the crucifixion of Christ. Sure it meant a lot to me. But Mel Gibson correctly understood that people needed to be visually confronted with the reality of those last twelve hours, in all of their violent content, to truly internalize the meaning. It's the same principle here. Sure we understand the pure evil of Berg's killing. But have we, in a two day news cycle, really internalized what it means about the enemy that we are in a life and death struggle with daily?
I think public opinion of the war in Iraq would be far different and far more committed if Americans had been allowed to view the complete Twin Towers video, the Daniel Pearl video, and the Nicholas Berg video.
To the networks: stop censoring the video.
To my friends and family: stop averting your eyes. You owe it to our troops to be fully committed to why we sent them there.
I'm deeply puzzled by our news media's filter on war issues. Prison mistreatment photos take by American GI's from Abu Grhaib are ok to show over and over again. Why because they are not too gruesome and are important. But Nicholas Berg's execution by Islamic terrorists can't be shown because it's too gruesome and would offend the sensibilities of civilized people. Same with the video of Daniel Pearl's slaughter by Islamic terrorists. Same with the graphic video of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers after being attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Are we getting the picture here? American mistreatment - not too gruesome. Islamic terrorists activities - too gruesome to show. That should give you all the perspective you need. As Sean Hannity said on his radio program all week, it should define for you the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.
But it's not enough. I think Americans are way too squeamish on this and should suck it up and view the videos so that we fully know what this War on Terrorism is all about. The full depth of it. I frankly don't have patience with my fellow countrymen on this point. We're going to commit troops to fight and die for a cause, but we can't be bothered to be offended by viewing the reality of that war?
I see it as analogous to "The Passion of the Christ". Sure I already knew the story of the crucifixion of Christ. Sure it meant a lot to me. But Mel Gibson correctly understood that people needed to be visually confronted with the reality of those last twelve hours, in all of their violent content, to truly internalize the meaning. It's the same principle here. Sure we understand the pure evil of Berg's killing. But have we, in a two day news cycle, really internalized what it means about the enemy that we are in a life and death struggle with daily?
I think public opinion of the war in Iraq would be far different and far more committed if Americans had been allowed to view the complete Twin Towers video, the Daniel Pearl video, and the Nicholas Berg video.
To the networks: stop censoring the video.
To my friends and family: stop averting your eyes. You owe it to our troops to be fully committed to why we sent them there.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Making it Personal
Even as a news junkie it's hard to put all that's happening in Iraq and in the War on Terrorism in perspective. How can you take in the daily toll of casualties, the complete disheartening of the prisoner abuse photos, the atrocity of the beheading of the American contractor by Al Qaida in Iraq. It's mind numbing.
And most of all it's remote. Even with Guard and Reserve troops from our area to Iraq I only know 1 person directly involved militarily. Even being a veteran myself it's hard to relate to our troops and the events unrolling on the screen.
So I decided to make it personal, and yesterday's news of the beheading of Mr. Berg made me do it. Here's how I made it personal:
I have a coworker who became a friend over the last year. I don't know him outside of work. I didn't know anything about his family. I know snippets about his hobbies. But I got to know him and admire him as a coworker and a mentor over the last year.
Around March of last year, when the Iraq invasion started, we were having lunch in the cafeteria. I was chattering on about events and my take on it. He wasn't talking much. Finally I asked him what he thought about us going to Iraq. "We don't have any business being there" he said in a quiet but deeply intense way. It surprised me. What's that all about, I thought.
Last month we were together again for a business dinner. We had more time to talk. It seems my friend has a son in the military. Assignment: Baghdad. And he won't say it, but he's clearly deathly afraid for his son's safety. "Stay on the base", he told him. "There's no reason to go to town".
So that's how I make it personal. I don't know a troop, but I know a troop's father.
So I watch the news of the beheading and I think "What if that was my friend's son? Is it worth his death for us to be in Iraq? Is it worth the heartache my friend would have?"
My answer for the invasion would have been yes. I believe Sadaam represented a real threat with a real connection to terrorism and a real grudge against the U.S. and was, in sum, a danger to us that needed to be defanged at a cost.
That's done. My answer now is no. We should go home.
I know that we have stated objectives to build a democracy in that area of the world as a base against terrorism. I don't buy it. They'll never like us there. Never.
I know pundits like Cokie Roberts make the argument that "We broke it, we bought it". I don't buy it. Sure we should rebuild some bridges, turn the water and power back on, etc. But nation building, no.
They're defanged. They can't hurt us. We should say simply "we did the right thing to prevent terrorism. Don't do it again or we'll be back." Then bring my friend's son and all the troops home.
If the Sunnis want to fight the Shiites, or vice versa, I don't care. It's not our fight.
And most of all it's remote. Even with Guard and Reserve troops from our area to Iraq I only know 1 person directly involved militarily. Even being a veteran myself it's hard to relate to our troops and the events unrolling on the screen.
So I decided to make it personal, and yesterday's news of the beheading of Mr. Berg made me do it. Here's how I made it personal:
I have a coworker who became a friend over the last year. I don't know him outside of work. I didn't know anything about his family. I know snippets about his hobbies. But I got to know him and admire him as a coworker and a mentor over the last year.
Around March of last year, when the Iraq invasion started, we were having lunch in the cafeteria. I was chattering on about events and my take on it. He wasn't talking much. Finally I asked him what he thought about us going to Iraq. "We don't have any business being there" he said in a quiet but deeply intense way. It surprised me. What's that all about, I thought.
Last month we were together again for a business dinner. We had more time to talk. It seems my friend has a son in the military. Assignment: Baghdad. And he won't say it, but he's clearly deathly afraid for his son's safety. "Stay on the base", he told him. "There's no reason to go to town".
So that's how I make it personal. I don't know a troop, but I know a troop's father.
So I watch the news of the beheading and I think "What if that was my friend's son? Is it worth his death for us to be in Iraq? Is it worth the heartache my friend would have?"
My answer for the invasion would have been yes. I believe Sadaam represented a real threat with a real connection to terrorism and a real grudge against the U.S. and was, in sum, a danger to us that needed to be defanged at a cost.
That's done. My answer now is no. We should go home.
I know that we have stated objectives to build a democracy in that area of the world as a base against terrorism. I don't buy it. They'll never like us there. Never.
I know pundits like Cokie Roberts make the argument that "We broke it, we bought it". I don't buy it. Sure we should rebuild some bridges, turn the water and power back on, etc. But nation building, no.
They're defanged. They can't hurt us. We should say simply "we did the right thing to prevent terrorism. Don't do it again or we'll be back." Then bring my friend's son and all the troops home.
If the Sunnis want to fight the Shiites, or vice versa, I don't care. It's not our fight.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Crossing the line
They're disconcerting of course. The pictures of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Absolutely unacceptable and appalling. And definitely damaging to our efforts to rebuild Iraq.
So are the soldiers who did it animals? Not likely in my estimation.
I attribute it to 2 things. Skirting the line by trying to gather intelligence thru psychological rather than physical torture. And putting troops untrained in that practice in charge of it for months at a time. Both things add to a failure of leadership. In skirting the line they crossed it. Court-martialling the privates won't accomplish anything. Some leaders have to take the fall.
There's no doubt that the Bush-haters and the anti-war folks will rightfully make good mileage out of this dreadful situation.
Fix it. Fire someone. And move on.
So are the soldiers who did it animals? Not likely in my estimation.
I attribute it to 2 things. Skirting the line by trying to gather intelligence thru psychological rather than physical torture. And putting troops untrained in that practice in charge of it for months at a time. Both things add to a failure of leadership. In skirting the line they crossed it. Court-martialling the privates won't accomplish anything. Some leaders have to take the fall.
There's no doubt that the Bush-haters and the anti-war folks will rightfully make good mileage out of this dreadful situation.
Fix it. Fire someone. And move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)