Head in the Sand
No disrespect intended, but those who would prefer to make excuses for instead of demand answers from the Bush Administration vis-à-vis torture – they look like this.
Don't worry, it's a comic.
Don't worry, it's a comic.
posted by lifeintheG at 6:44 AM
4 Comments:
Wooowww...
Okay, MG. Let's rumble.
No disrespect intended.
*cough*bullshit*cough*
Look, you've taken an enormous liberty here in assuming you understood what point I was trying to make. I obviously didn't make one explicitly, but I still find it telling that you would use the article as a way of saying that I'm making excuses for the Bush Administratin, rather than, say, asking me what I was trying to prove.
Really. Ask me.
...
No? Well, I'll tell you anyway.
Here it is:
Torture is not the problem the media has made it out to be.
Read that again; I'll wait.
Note that in that point none of the following implications exist:
1) Bush and Co. shouldn't be held responsible.
2) Torture is excusable.
3) Questioning Guantanamo is as natural as questioning your senses (?).
4) Contrasting stories of torture with stories of good treatment is holding one's head in the sand.
Implying all that from one article is...well, nothing short of amazing.
MG, is it your usual practice to assume you understand your opponents and then proceed to lambast them by attacking what looks to be the greatest collection of idiotic beliefs? I have a suggestion:
Stop.
The people in that comic don't exist, except in your head. Someone who simultaneously believes that torture is excusable because good treatment is also present exists, so far as I can tell, only in your head.
Try dealing with this person (me) instead:
Torture is not the problem the media has made it out to be. That's irrelevant of the fact that it may be a problem, but the evidence suggests that the US is doing a far better job caring for prisoners of war than any other country in history, period. Holding Bush and Co. responsible for torture entirely misses the point - they are always responsible, insofar as they're the figures of authority, but claiming they need to make recompense for what seems to be a grassroots problem and not a top-down problem smacks a helluva lot more of partisanship than seeking after truth.
There. Answer that guy.
Hey, as long as you think torture is a problem and that Bush is responsible for everything that happens on his watch (*ahem* 9/11, *ahem* WMD) then I’m fine. People who are like the people in that cartoon, (oh, and since this is a recurring problem perhaps we need to have a heart-to-heart on the concept of comic hyperbole to make a point, because you seem to be taking everything way too literally), are the people who write headlines like Torture - Not So Much. Also anyone who says a “few bad apples” in an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug instead of investigating it to its rightful conclusion.
I just want investigations. Not just about this. About DeLay’s ethics problems. About Valerie Plame. About the use of intelligence leading up to the war (Cheney’s trips to the CIA for example). Any number of other things. What’s wrong with investigating stuff? It’s like they always say, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear. But BushCo stop every investigation with an explanation like, “Bush said so, so there’s no reason to doubt him.” This country was founded on checks and balances. This one-party rule thing is tearing our republic apart. And you can see it graphically when you look at those Abu Ghraib photos.
And incidentally, what have you honestly heard other than Bush’s say-so that the torture is a grassroots problem and not a top-down problem? What about the memos that Gonzales wrote authorizing torture? What about the extraordinary rendition trips routinely being taken in those unmarked CIA planes? What about all the hundreds of stories of innocent men who were tortured and then let go from all of our prisons, not just one or two? How can you say, beyond a reasonable doubt that it absolutely isn’t American policy to torture these men? It’s not a partisan thing. If Clinton were behaving in this manner, I would be just as pissed. It offends me.
You guys like to talk about morality. Here’s your morals challenge staring you right in the face. We can either fix it, or we can all look the other way and be as guilty as Lyndi England and all the rest.
MG -
On comic hyperbole: I'm sure I could write a comic showing a Democrat giving aid and compassion to Al Qaeda, just like Rove claimed, and then claim that it was just hyperbole. But it'd still be wrong.
Second - I'm with you on investigations. And the process has already been started, though I don't know what you'll say about the conclusions (honestly, I'm not sure either, since organizations trying to hide something haven't been known to put their true face forward).
Third -
...what have you honestly heard other than Bush’s say-so that the torture is a grassroots problem and not a top-down problem?
The article cited. Michael Yon, to whom you can link on the sidebar. But most of all, it's because of this:
What about all the hundreds of stories of innocent men who were tortured and then let go from all of our prisons, not just one or two? How can you say, beyond a reasonable doubt that it absolutely isn’t American policy to torture these men?
More than anything else - and I am dead damn serious - assertions like these make me almost dismiss the problem. Almost.
We don't have "hundreds of stories", MG. We have Abu Ghraib photos. And we have 108 people dead, and you don't have any idea how they died, and whether or not it was by natural causes. YOu've taken it and assumed the worst. In short, you have an incomplete case - one that may one day be complete, but not now. Not by a longshot. And the fact that you come forward with the evidence you have and use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" suggests to me that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Let's get one thing straight - I had the same thoughts about James when he first said that torture was definitely not a sanctioned activity, and that Bush shouldn't be held responsible. And the jury's still out for me. But I know enough about the evidence to know that it should be out for you, too. Instead, I find that your mind is already made up. And I don't really care what party you belong to; if you're mind is made up before the evidence is in, you're not looking at this fairly.
The funny thing here is that we both agree on the course of action that should be taken.
Incidentally, and on a totally irrelevant side note -
If Clinton were behaving in this manner, I would be just as pissed.
A great deal of evidence suggests that he was. Let me ask you something, though:
If I mentioned any of the following names - Christopher Ruddy, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Vincent Foster - would you hear me out, or suggest that I was a conspiracy theorist?
I ask because there's another factor at play here. James mentioned a while ago that most Republicans didn't like Clinton because he "rubbed them the wrong way." Though I have no doubt that that's true, the fact remains that a great many didn't like him because of suspected parts he played in drug dealing in Arkansas, arms smuggling in Mena airport, getting his brother off on drug charges while claiming to let the law take care of him, and, of course, good old Vince Foster. Most to all of these events were written off as conspiracy theories. From the stuff I've read, most to all of them had more than a little factual basis.
Point is, from a Republican viewpoint, this kind of thing has happened before. And the great stereotype that emerged was one of White America angry about Bill Clinton's penis. That's hardly a credible group to be in, so most shut up. And now, when others are insisting that Bush and Co. are hiding something, that they're ripping the republic apart, many Republicans become furious.
This doesn't have any real relevance to what your point is, but it's worth noting that Bush, even at his worst portrayal, is hardly the worst this country has seen (say...Truman). WHich is, again, kind of irrelevant, unless someone writes you off for having an incomplete knowledge of American History.
This is totally, totally irrelevant and off the subject...but dude, this site rocks!
Make your Blogger Comments HTML-a-ma-tastic!
THis is, down pat, the best HTML tutorial I've ever seen. GIve it a shot.
And MG - sorry for the invective. FUnny how a site like this makes me incredibly happy, and removes any malice I might have had.
Post a Comment
<< Home