Thursday, May 20, 2004
I think the answer to that is no.
That however, begs the next question, then why are we doing this? Why has the Bush Administration ok’ed torture as a mode of war?
For expediency? For security?
I’m not suggesting that we’ve become a Hitler. Nor am I suggesting that there is not a way to actively seek information from prisoners. But we’ve apparently killed people using methods of torture and we’ve apparently used a child as a pawn to break a father.
Are our ideals so easily tossed aside?
Apparently the petty people in the Bush Administration thinks so.
No, Mr. Bush did not personally sodomize any Iraqis with a chemical light, nor did Donald Rumsfeld asphyxiate unarmed prisoners, but, as the Gonzales memo shows, they fostered a culture and a climate where such events happened.
I think history will judge Mr. Bush harshly as a small man, who in a time of great challenge and change, reduced nuanced thought to swagger, diminished problem solving to slogan making, and struggled with problems that he did not grasp and did not care to understand.
Is there any doubt that the struggle with anti-American terror goes far deeper than simple attacking Afghanistan and Iraq in response?
If we get Bin Laden will the attacks stop? If we cut his head off on television and broadcast the live image to the Arab world will anti-American violence cease?
Of course not.
And that’s one of the real shames of the Bush Administration. They don’t care AT ALL about addressing the root causes of the problem.
Again, Mr. Bush needs to stop acting like the new American Caesar go home to Texas.