(no subject)

[timepiececlock]

The San Jose Mercury News had pictures of the victimized Iraqi prisoners on the front page today. I can'd understand why they did not blur the faces of the victims. If the roles were switched, they would have.

This is the first time I've seen the images... the fact that I never watch tv news probably contributed to this. I've heard about them all week, of course. I am experiencing a range of shifting emotions over the topic.

I don't know why Bush doesn't fire Rumsfeild and crack down hard on this-- I know hw wants to stick with the man, but dumping the Secretary and saving his own image from connection to the man that wanted to keep this buried would be the shrewd thing to do. Then again, maybe this way even more people will vote against him.

God, I can't even comprehend how much has gone wrong for us since they took office. Catastrophe is the word.

Comments

[caille.livejournal.com]

Why doesn't Bush fire his ass? Bush and all of his asses have plenty of support. Check out this nasty little tidbit by Charlotte Allen at the Independent Women's Forum

....But I can’t help grinning at the yelps of outrage from our liberal opinion-molders--the very same people who had nothing whatever to say about the genuinely ghastly physical tortures that Saddam Hussein inflicted on thousands of Iraqis over the years. At Abu Ghraib, by contrast, there are no allegations of physical torture. The pain was strictly psychological: having to strip naked, simulate sexual acts, wear hoods, and get hooked up to electrical wires that led to--nowhere. Oh, and chicks were on the torture teams, which to misogynist Muslim fanatics is a Very Bad Thing. But in all the photos I’ve seen, not a single pyramided body looks bloody, pained, or starved.

Frankly, it all sounded only slightly worse than the inititiation ceremony my classmates and I had to endure when we tried to join a secret club at my snooty all-girls’ high school. We had to don gunnysack robes, walk barefoot through mud and over rocks, get pelted with garbage, have honey smeared on our hair, kneel abjectly to our captors--and then, after all that, I didn’t even make the cut to get into the damned club!....

Then there's George Neumayr of The American Spectator, who manages to make the whole thing a Clinton-generated Gay Conspiracy:

....And why is the behavior depicted in the photos so appalling to liberals? If the behavior had been voluntary, liberals would call it free speech. Are they upset that the war has gone pay-per-view? In the liberal mind, such acts form an important identity and alternative lifestyle worthy of respect and tolerance. As the pop culture they have bestowed upon us might say, "Don't be ignorant." Who is to say those acts are wrong? After all, in Massachusetts now, they are construed as courtship.

The Democrats don't want this to ever happen again? Okay, let's discuss Bill Clinton's Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't care policy. Could that perhaps have something to do with indiscipline in the ranks? No, that's not a permissible thought, according to the Democrats....

People get paid cash money to write this drivel. Awesome. We are in deep trouble.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Who is to say those acts are wrong?

::gagging now::

Does this person not understand the difference between being right and wrong at its most basic level? And if he's a religious conservative, why isn't he calling the behavior of the military men a ghastly sin? I think it qualifies as deviance and depravity.