Conservatives begin all-out effort to diminish prisoner abuse scandal

The tea leaves have now been read, I smell a vast right-wing conspiracy brewing.

You were probably just as shocked as I was that a Republican Senator today basically condoned the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. I figured that was just the voice of one wingnut until I watched the news tonight and checked my latest email. Guess who else was making excuses for the abuse? First Sean Hannity on conservative radio, and now Gary Bauer via the religious right news service. All this happening within the same afternoon. Coincidence? Unlikely.

Bauer's criticism is so bizarre and convoluted (he, for example, brings up Chappadquiddick) that I won't even get into it - you've got the link above to read to your heart's content. As for Hannity, after one of his callers complained that the current scandal is all the fault of the "liberal media," Hannity asked: "Do we now understand the difference between atrocity and mistreatment?" (refering to today's beheading of an American civilian contractor in Iraq). Ah yes, the beheading of an American now excuses or at least mitigates the sadistic sexual and physical torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. Somehow the fact that Hannity has suddenly discovered evil in the world makes it more acceptable for Americans to share a part of that evil. (I'm always amused when a Bible-thumper excuses blatant immorality by pointing to the blatant immorality of someone else. I had no idea that Sean Hannity's standard of acceptable morality for himself, for our servicemembers, and for our country is to be slightly better than Al Qaeda. Yes, we don't cut off heads. Bully for our side.)

In any case, it troubles me that conservatives have now latched on to this horrifying issue in a coordinated way to bash liberals. It's one thing to make an issue political. Hell, that's just the way Washington works, like it or not. It's another to go political in a manner that actually threatens serious harm to a serious issue, and that's what the conservatives are now doing. They are outright trying to diminish the severity and the import of this scandal, ultimately implying that - nudge nudge, wink wink - what happened was actually okay, or at the very least, wasn't nearly as bad as people say. That kind of moral relativism, or moral dilution, sends an awful message to our troops (who are already apparently pretty damn confused about what the rules are), and sends an even worse message to our own citizens, and the rest of the world. Read the rest of this post...

George Will implies Rumsfeld should resign

Ok, I'm reading between the lines a bit, but not by much. George Will doesn't only criticize the Bush administration overall, he also seems to be implying that Rumsfeld should realize he's not indispensable and that his legacy would be better served by his resigning now. See what you think:

When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable....

Are the nation's efforts in the deepening global war -- the world is more menacing than it was a year ago -- helped or hindered by Rumsfeld's continuation as the appointed American most conspicuously identified with the conduct of the war? This is not a simple call. But being experienced, he will know how to make the call. Being honorable, he will so do.

He knows his Macbeth and will recognize the framing of the second question: Were he to resign, would discerning people say that nothing in his public life became him like the leaving of it?

This nation has always needed an ethic about the resignation of public officials. Such an ethic cannot be codified. It must grow in controlling power from precedent to precedent, as an unwritten common law, distilled from the behavior of uncommonly honorable men and women who understand the stakes. A nation, especially one doing the business of empire, needs high officials to be highly attentive to what is done in their departments -- attentive far down the chain of command, as though their very jobs depended on it.

Finally, the second axiom. It is from Charles de Gaulle: The graveyards are full of indispensable men.

Read the rest of this post...

VIDEO: Republican Senator says Iraqis deserved it

Watch video of Inhofe's comments here.

Uber-Conservative Republican Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) just said on CNN that the Iraqi prisoners basically deserved what they got:

"I have to say I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment. The idea that these prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1A or 1B these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents, many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

According to CNN, John McCain walked out the room during Inhofe's remarks and told reporters he did not agree with him. Democratic Senators reportedly sat stunned as Inhofe defended the abuses.

Where to begin? First, I don't recall any of those prisoners having been tried and convicted in any court, civilian or military, of the crimes Inhofe has apparently convicted them of. In fact, recent reports say that 90% of the people we've arrested have been innocent. So where Inhofe gets off saying most of them are terrorists and murderers is beyond me. Second, even if they were convicted of such crimes, is Inhofe suggesting that the appropriate response is to butt-fuck the Iraqis with glow sticks and have dogs take out chunks of their flesh while our soldiers smile on?

Finally, I want names. Inhofe says other Republican Senators agree with him that this abuse is not a big deal, then he should name them. The man has always been a homophobic pig. Hardly surprising his lack of humanity isn't only limited towards his hateful views of gay people. Read the rest of this post...

Let the conservative blood-letting begin

Fascinating editorial by Arnaud de Borchgrave at the Washington Times (man, those were words I never thought I'd write). First, I didn't realize Tutwiler had left her post as the top PR person for the US government's foreign policy. Tutwiler is the administration's third person to take that position, then leave. But even more interesting than that revelation is the fact that de Borchgrave seems to be making a pretty explicit criticism of the Bush Administration in this editorial - something the Washington Times isn't usually very apt to do. The most surprising part of the editorial is this:

The coercive utopians in Washington, from the neo-cons to the Christian Right, misled, among others, Ambassador Tutwiler. Exit Queen Tut, as she was fondly known. Her mission was indeed impossible.

Wow. What I read that as meaning is that folks who think they can make their utopian worldview reality by force or fiat, be they neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration or religious right zealots, are sadly mistaken.

That's pretty heady criticism from the newspaper that many of us consider the vanguard of conservatives and the religious right. Let the conservative blood-letting begin. Read the rest of this post...

Were they wanting to replace Cheney, this would be their chance

It's a small chance, but today's heart check up would be the perfect opportunity to claim that some "surprise" in his physical is requiring Cheney to step down. It would certainly get everyone's attention off of the prisoner abuse scandal. Read the rest of this post...

War overshadowing far-right domestic agenda

How inconsiderate of all those dead soldiers to push the fundamentalists' culture war out of the news.

'There are quite a lot of conservatives who feel that the Iraqi situation has overshadowed domestic issues, including important fiscal and social initiatives,' said K.B. Forbes, a conservative who worked on the failed presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan in 1996 and Steve Forbes in 2000.

'There are groups who would like to see some emphasis and progress on banning same sex marriage, limiting abortion, doing something about immigration and health care. Bush will have to address their concerns at the Republican convention in the summer,' he said. - Reuters

Read the rest of this post...

I so predicted it

I've asked several times how anti-gay zealots could reconcile labeling pro-gay court decisions as "judicial activism" yet still supporting cases like "Brown v. Board of Education" in which the court also "legislated morality." Well, they finally caught on to their hypocrisy. But of course, being good zealots, it didn't bring them around on gay issues, rather it made them "realize" that Brown v. Board WAS A BAD COURT DECISION! And lest you think this article is written by some fringe wacko, it's written by someone who works for Townhall.com, the big conservative Web portal.

First they came for the trade unionists... Read the rest of this post...

P'Town to marry out of state gay couples

Nah nah nah nah nah. Read the rest of this post...