From The Boston Globe:
Soon after Kerry made those remarks to radio broadcaster Don Imus, a supporter and friend of the presumed Democratic nominee, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot assailed Kerry in unusually personal language, at one point saying Kerry’s character is ‘’defective.” The objection reflected the heated politics surrounding allegations that US military personnel have brutalized and humiliated Iraqi prisoners.
Racicot said Kerry’s criticisms smacked of ‘’raw political opportunism” and argued that, on Iraq and some other issues, Kerry has breached boundaries of political argument that most Americans accept.
Pressed for examples by reporters on a conference call, Racicot cited two: Kerry’s remark this week that the abuse scandal stemmed in part from the ‘’overall arrogance” in running Iraq on Bush administration terms and a recent Kerry fund-raising letter that decried the abuse scandal and repeated the call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.
________________________
Dear Senator Kerry,
Wow - it doesn’t seem like you’re capable of making any criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy without being calculatingly political, unpatriotic, or French. I’ve searched the web, and I can’t find a single major statement that you’ve made about the Iraq war that hasn’t been denounced as Out Of Bounds by someone in the Bush camp.
Clearly, this is a problem for your campaign. You’ve got to speak out about the most significant issue in our country, of course, and it’s hard to run a campaign without saying that you might approach a problem differently than the incumbent. But goshdarnit, you can’t keep being all unpatriotic and political here. So I’ve come up with some things you might say that don’t open you up to charges of trying to inject politics into a political campaign. Here are a couple. Senator Kerry, feel free to use ‘em:
“I’m sure the President thought of this already, but it might be a good idea to staff our Iraqi detention facilities with people who are well-versed in prison management and the Geneva Convention. Obviously, George Bush feels as I do on this one, so it’s probably not a problem, really. Sorry for wasting your time.”
“The war in Iraq is going so darn well that I can’t help wanting to be involved. If elected, I promise to continue the same super-great course that the President has put us on. Maybe I’d make one or two wee stylistic adjustments, like creating a broader international coalition, getting our soldiers home, and transforming it into a truly multinational reconstruction effort in order to win back the confidence of the Iraqis and the world. But those are just trivial details, really. Sorry for bothering you.”
“Obviously, there’s no way to do a better job in the War on Terror than the President is doing. But if you want a leader who spells his name differently than the incumbent, vote for me.”
“If elected, I promise to keep the greatest nation in the world just as great as it is now, with all of its great policies and its great direction. Things are so fantastically great, and we are so outstandingly great, that we can continue our great march to even greater greatness by electing a great leader like myself to replace the great George Bush.”
“Vote Bush! Or Kerry - it’s your choice, really, and I don’t want to rock the boat at this critical moment in history. God bless America.”
Those are just off the top of my head, but you get the idea. This kind of approach will shield you from the justifiable criticism that you’ve been acting sort of, well, oppositional lately. I hope you’ll take the advice to heart before it’s too late, lest Americans be forced to choose between two contrasting philosophies come November. That would be a tragedy - it would demonstrate to the world that we Americans are capable of allowing substantive political debate that leaves our leaders vulnerable to replacement based on a national vote. That would make us look weak, and only you can prevent it.
Thanks, and let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help.
Love,
Adam
Fanny Roborat
26 comments
lovable liberal
May 14, 2004 at 1:30 pm
1I say throw the Racicots out!
Conky
May 14, 2004 at 3:14 pm
2I say we boil the whole lot of them in their own oil, then take the gold!
Pat R.
May 14, 2004 at 3:44 pm
3This a good sign. No, really. In the recent Spanish election campaign, Aznar (outgoing Spanish President and Bush soulmate) and Mariano Rajoy (presidential candidate, handpicked by Aznar) assailed the opposition candidate, Zapatero, in wild, outrageous terms. Any criticism Zapatero made was labeled ‘unpatriotic,’ ‘disloyal’ or ‘opportunistic’ (sound familiar)? Aznar described Zapatero as the most incompetent candidate he’d ever seen, on one occasion actually compared Zapatero to Hitler. Zapatero simply kept to his plan, did not engage Aznar, et al. on their terms.
When 11-M happened, three days before the Spanish elections, and it became progressively more obvious during the following days that the ruling party was withholding information they thought would weaken their position in the elections, all of their conduct finally came home to roost in an unprecedented electoral upset.
Result: Zapatero (who opposed the invasion of Iraq every step of the way) is now President, Aznar (who dragged the country into a war 90+% of the population wanted nothing to do with) is visiting Bush. In unofficial capacity.
It happened in Spain. It can happen here.
tim
May 14, 2004 at 3:46 pm
4Sneak preview of a late-October GOP statement:
“The unmitigated gall of Kerry to actually appear on the ballot! What an outrage!”
~Kalikat
May 14, 2004 at 3:52 pm
5Adam,
You are truly a brilliant man! I think these suggestions will propel you to the top Kerry’s list of potential runing mates.
Nice job!
jerry
May 14, 2004 at 3:55 pm
6I am upset about this abuse scandal for two reasons.
The first is that it appears that the 800th MP Brigade was lead by officers that are severely lacking. BG Karpinski allowed good discipline to erode to the point that no single uniform standard was enforced. (This is a fundamental thing. If I can’t trust you to wear your uniform properly how can I trust you to use equipment whose sole purpose is to take the life of another human being.) The 320th MP Company (the specific unit in question) hadn’t done any real refresher training in over a year. To have a unit that ate up in her command is beyond excuse. All that taken into account, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that every one of the soldiers involved had detainee training and legal training in Basic.
MPs have two basic kinds of duty. The first is combat support. That basic mission is to secure rear areas, supply lines, troop movement lines, and EPWs and other detained combatants. The second mission is Provost Marshall duties. These are the basic law enforcement functions and running US Military prisons. All of these skills are taught in Basic Training over 17 weeks – the first nine being basic soldiering and the last eight being MP school. They were MPs, not cooks, mechanics, or chaplains’ aides. They knew what they were doing was beyond any legal interpretation. They are soldiers in the US Army, not kids on a tropical island dancing around a pig on a stake.
The second reason I am upset is how it is being treated. We could have used this situation as a powerful training example of how a democracy is self-policing. A single enlisted soldier informed his superiors of the problems and an investigation was started (let’s not forget this was in January). It could have been a shining moment and we missed it. The Army issued a press release 3 days later that the investigation was begun. Now the press, for whatever reason, didn’t follow up. The Army should have noticed and pressed the issue. They should have stood there and said, “We are investigating this. This is what we have. This is what we are doing.” We didn’t and the press slept. When one of the accused parent’s felt like his son wasn’t being given a fair shake he wrote members of Congress. They ignored him. So he writes David Hackworth. Hackworth now gets the press’s attention and all hell breaks lose. CBS is running around like they did some hard-core investigative journalism and uncovered something. The very members of Congress contacted earlier are saying they are shocked and were blind-sided. One in particular is equating the entire military with the torturers of the Hussein regime from the Senate floor. We have spent an awful lot of time standing on the street corner in sack cloths and ashes but we can’t even spend more than a single news cycle on the decapitation on video of a human being by monsters. I know you don’t like that term Adam but there is no excuse for what they did and how they did it. Those five gave up their humanity.
One company under a command that needs to be cashiered does not reflect the entire Army nor the Defense Department as a whole.
jerry
the conserva-troll
emilie
May 14, 2004 at 5:36 pm
7jerry, you must be right.
anything that’s reported in the press points out mistakes the american military has made must be quickly reported, then stomped out, because it’s simply not patriotic to continue to report about the damning situation.
however, if an american dies, it should be ON EVERY NEWS PROGRAM ALL THE TIME. because that’s different than americans torturing iraqis; who cares about them, they’re not americans!
(end sarcasm)
honestly, i’m not saying that one is more important than the other; they’re both horrific events. both deserve media attention. don’t shush one because you don’t like the message.
tess
May 14, 2004 at 7:27 pm
8i don’t know about the rest of you, but i’m feeling a little overwhelmed by the recent news, and it seems to be getting worse.
i’ve been hearing analysis that the people who beheaded mr. berg did so not because of the abu graib prison scandal but more out of a political move to incite americans. and on that level, it worked on me — i would like nothing better than to slice those wads of used toilet paper into pieces, bit by bit: starting with the toes and a pair of wire cutters.
the situation rings more true of the unsubstantiated tape of bin laden saying he support saddam right before american troops invaded iraq — a well-crafted piece of propeganda used to mislead americans into war for revenge. we’re more liable to take “vengence” on innocent iraqis who end up dead joining fundamentalist groups bent on destroying the invaders, and thus perpetuating a holy war.
so for the abu graib scandal, i think it does deserve the coverage it has been given because we’re in a country where 70% of the population probably doesn’t want us there, and now we’ve just shown that we’re really no better than saddam. we’re in for a lot of shit. because remember the prisoners have relatives, and they’ve had their own speculations floating around for months (so don’t go blaming the press completely for this one). instead of firing the people who pretty much let this happen, we’re blaming the underlings who had relatively little control over the whole situation.
now unless we’re planning on declaring a jihad in mr. berg’s name, i think the coverage is just fine as is.
ken... Just Ken
May 14, 2004 at 8:47 pm
9Yes, this investigation was started in January, but why weren’t the Courts-Martial and the rest of the solutions started at that time.
The photos hit the news and THEN the administration began to act.
Today they released almost 300 innocent prisoners from our prisons in Iraq. WOuld this have happened at all if the press hadn’t released the stories?
This administration does nothing it doesn’t want to do unless it’s forced by public opinion.
Can’t we vote today? I just want this done.
Justanothermalcontent
May 14, 2004 at 11:38 pm
10Clearly you guys haven’t received your inoculations yet. You’re not supposed to remember old scandals. Woodward’s book should have made you immune to everything our greatest unelected President has done in the last three years.
Beth
May 15, 2004 at 12:43 am
11The Army issued a press release 3 days later that the investigation was begun. Now the press, for whatever reason, didn’t follow up.
That’s a great observation, Jerry TCT, and points up a major problem in the entire system. The administration has absolutely no way of getting its message to the American people. It can mention it in a line or two in the middle of a long press report, but if the press fails to pounce on it, then they’re screwed. If only there were other options, some way to get the press and public’s attention. It must be terrible stuck up there in the White House, cut off from the outside world, while the press goes its merry way, writing about whatever it feels like.
The whole thing’s pretty suspicious, too. The press corps is usually such a bunch of investigative muckraking madmen, scouring every bit of information that comes their way, following up on the smallest thing, pulling out all stops to get to the truth behind even the vaguest hint of a problem in the administration. It would have been one thing if they were a bunch of lard asses who just sat around waiting to be fed the latest ‘big story’ for this week’s news style, but the way they’ve been up till now, diggng into every questionable action or statement by this administration, you’ve got to ask yourself, could missing this one have really been just an innocent mistake?
And as for Congress, well I’m just speechless. I mean, it’s one thing for the president not to know anything about it. He’s so busy with all those fund raisers and vacations and all, and it’s not like he ever gets to talk to Rumsfeld, anyway. But the Congress, they’re the ones in command of the armed forces, aren’t they? They decide troop deployments and strategies and all of that stuff. Hell, they’re the ones who sent our guys over there in the first place. If they’re not responsible for this mess, who is?
poorwarren
May 15, 2004 at 1:08 am
12Tim,
You, got it! How dare an opposition candidate speak up at this time. After all, we must remember that Bush is a “War President”. How dare anybody interject reason and logic into the campaign! It’s so damned unfair and despicable.
Beth
May 15, 2004 at 12:31 pm
13Tim, I disagree. Opposition candidates are necessary to maintain the appearance of a democracy. What’s outrageous is that Kerry would go around telling people they should vote for him instead of Bush. Besides causing divisiveness and politicizing the electoral process, it gives the impression that Bush may be a less than ideal president and therefore borders on treason.
Jerry
May 16, 2004 at 4:54 am
14To quote a great American, Ronald Reagan,”If there is to be a bloodbath, let it be now!” No, wait…that was about a campus demonstration. What I meant to quote was, “Well, there you go again…”
Listen up folks: according to the Constitution (which our strict-constructionist President supports, except for the three or four major changes he wants made to it): No Congressional declaration, no war. No war, no POWs. No POWs, no possible violations of the Geneva Convention. We’re home free.
‘Course, that means no War President, but I’m sure Bush would happily strip himself of this self-bestowed appellation to clear up this whole misunderstanding.
And I’m sure that the detainees, at least the surviving ones, will be thrilled with their membership in Skull and Bones, to which, I understand, this good-natured hazing entitles them.
Pat R.
May 16, 2004 at 7:49 am
15A single enlisted soldier informed his superiors of the problems and an investigation was started (let’s not forget this was in January).
From msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/), re: the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross given to U.S. officials in February and published in The Wall Street Journal:
“…Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the Red Cross’ director of operations, said…. [the report] only summarized what the agency had been telling U.S. officials in detail from March to November 2003 ‘either in direct face-to-face conversations or in written interventions.’”
From The Detroit News (http://tinyurl.com/yrgxh), re:
“Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that he and other top officials kept the president ‘fully informed in general terms,’ about complaints made by the Red Cross and others of ill-treatment of detainees in American custody….
“Red Cross officials have said they began complaining about the condition of Iraqi prisoners more than a year ago, before major combat ended, and raised concerns about the main detention facility at Abu Ghraib last October, more than two months before Taguba launched his investigation on orders from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military commander in Iraq.
“A Powell aide said he couldn’t pinpoint when the secretary first spoke with the president about detainees in Iraq, but said Powell told Bush about receiving complaints about detainees generally — in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ‘at various times throughout this period — the last year or more.’”
From the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/2s7bd):
“Other U.S. officials said Rumsfeld and the Pentagon resisted appeals in recent months from the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority to deal with problems relating to detainees. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urged action in several White House meetings that included Rumsfeld….”
And again from The Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/ytm9g):
“Some U.S. officials said Rumsfeld was resistant to repeated warnings from Iraq governor L. Paul Bremer — delivered as early as last fall — that the United States was detaining too many Iraqis for too long and in poor conditions. Bremer told Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials that if the problem persisted, the political fallout in Iraq would be serious….”
From Salon.com (http://tinyurl.com/339om):
“‘My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture,’ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday. ‘I don’t know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there’s been a conviction for torture. And therefore I’m not going to address the torture word.’ He confessed that he had still not read the March 9 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba on the ‘abuse’ at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.”
And once again from the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/339v7):
“Beginning more than two years ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in foreign countries. His Pentagon ruled that the United States would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado and without any independent mechanism of review. Abuses will take place in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s decisions helped create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured and murdered — and in which, until recently, no one has been held accountable.
“The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan ‘do not have any rights’ under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional.”
Murray
May 16, 2004 at 9:31 am
16Well according to Seymour Hirsch, the photos were used as part of the abuse. By taking pictures of naked Moslem men and threatening to show them to his neighbors and relatives it was thought that they would be more likely to talk and perhaps be coerced into being a mole in their community. This policy was not the idea of a few reservists from the Cumberland MD area. It came from on top. According to Hirsch the normally amoral CIA was so disgusted that they left the prison.
As hard as the Bushites try to make it appear that a few rouge soldiers are disgracing our noble effort to provide democracy and peace to Iraq, the fact remains that it was their own policies that were being followed.
Geneva Convention? Hell, the administration just after going into Afghanistan said that because Al Qaeda wasn’t a state so the rules didn’t apply, and the same goes for Iraq, which is why they are able to justify the treatment at Gitmo.
Kerry,
My take is that most Democrats wanted Dean but voted for Kerry because they were told over and over again that only Kerry was electable. Now he’s our standard bearer and does little more than stand by.
My advice is to quit being Dukakis and lead the country against the major danger that this administration poses.
Hire someone to teach you to speak directly, forcefully and boldly, the country is waiting for you to lead them.
Corwin Haught
May 16, 2004 at 12:59 pm
17***WE INTERRUPT THESE COMMENTS FOR THIS WEEK’S REMARKS FROM THE MPR WWDTM ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (not affilated with the jewish Anti-Defamation League)***
At first, I was dismayed that MPR had pre-empted WWDT for “Public Radio Weekend”, but I had nothing beeter to do, so I listened to the whole thing. It’s like NPR but it’s not. After that was over, again having nothing else to do, I kept the radio on…
and the familar morse code beeps indicated WWDTM’s arrival. WWDTM being late is better that it not being on at all.
Winston Smith
May 17, 2004 at 12:11 am
18It’s not Abu Ghraib anymore folks, it’s Camp Redemption http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/16/wtort1 16.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/16/ixnewstop.html
Is it my imagination, or did the Bush Administration read NineteenEightyFour a little TOO carefully?
Pat R.
May 17, 2004 at 4:07 am
19Murray, rogue soldiers try to disgrace our noble efforts — rouge soldiers stand around and touch up their make-up.
historyenne
May 17, 2004 at 4:46 am
20Well, Winston, the Bushies certainly do have the “memory hole” concept down pat.
Watch out for the rats.
jerry
May 17, 2004 at 11:19 am
21Ken – the Courts-Martial didn’t start until now because the Article 15 investigation by Taguba wasn’t complete. After that investigation is complete then Army JAG has to decide whom it will level criminal charges against. All of that takes time. I am enough of a realist to know that the timing wasn’t completely without the influence of the press reports but to insinuate that it is completely driven by the press is just wrong.
One of the major points in the Article 15 report is BG Karpinski’s lack of any action concerning the release of people. I do believe that the people who have been released in recent days would have been released regardless of the press coverage. This would have been one of the very first things a new commander would have done. It is an action that solves lots of problems, including but not limited to detainee-to-guard ratios and the logistics of housing and feeding of detainees.
jerry
the conserva-troll
Murray
May 17, 2004 at 12:58 pm
22Pat,
To paraphrase the late Mayor Richard J. Dailey
“Don’t read what I write, read what I mean”
What I need is a spell check that does just that.
adam
May 18, 2004 at 2:23 am
23Jerry sez:
We have spent an awful lot of time standing on the street corner in sack cloths and ashes but we can’t even spend more than a single news cycle on the decapitation on video of a human being by monsters. I know you don’t like that term Adam but there is no excuse for what they did and how they did it. Those five gave up their humanity.
Jerry - this is similar to something I’ve been hearing a lot of from conservatives, and it’s a singularly silly argument. The prison scandal and the Berg atrocity are very different events. Nick Berg’s murder was single, horrifying event, and the Abu Ghraib scandal is a complex, still-unfolding investigation. I don’t think the media has shortchanged the Berg story (and I’d imagine that we haven’t heard the last of it).
To be a bit callous, let me point out that the Abu Gharib scandal is pure TV fodder from a completely apolitical standpoint. It has the kind of sensational details that keep people tuning in: Brutality! Sex! Trials! Who knew what, and when!? Now there are MORE PHOTOS! Lynndie England is PREGNANT!
More soberly, I wanna point out that the scandal also touches that raw nerve that gets exposed whenever we Americans see ourselves behaving in a manner that’s so grossly at odds with our self image.
Al Qaeda is our enemy, and they are composed of ruthless, deluded, - yes - monstrous individuals capable of almost unthinkable crimes. Nick Berg’s beheading adds another crime to that story, and reasonable people on all sides of the political spectrum see it as further evidence that this horrifying organization and its philosophy need to be wiped from the face of the earth.
But using Nick Berg as your go-to guy for arguments about the prison scandal is nonsensical and somewhat offensive. If you cruise the web and read the papers you’ll see tons of arguments like yours (most of them worse, actually. To be fair, it was a sidebar in your post), and it is simply wrong. At this point, it’s really America’s conservatives who are waving Berg’s head around. It’s bizarre - the Berg video was an unholy and possibly VERY effective piece of Al Qaeda propaganda [”You feel helpless and humiliated by America? WE can help!”], and the web is now full of silly American hawks who are obligingly hosting the thing.
And finally, the prisoners we tormented weren’t Al Qaeda. The facile Us and Them formulation that is frequently employed to shove Berg into Abu Ghraib discussions has never been more naked and dangerous. [”They complain about what We did to Them, but look at what They did to Us!”]
Berg’s murderer wasn’t even an Iraqi.
Murray
May 18, 2004 at 9:43 am
24Nick Berg’s death was horrific (no I didn’t watch the video), so was the death of the four contract security guards whose bodies were mutilated in Falluja.
How many American soldiers have been killed in Iraq? I believe it’s around 750, and scores of American civilians. We don’t even worry about the 8-10,000 Iraqis. But we only seem to notice the deaths that were meant for us to notice. How or why is being dismembered by a bomb so much less newsworthy than by a knife? Because it’s on video? Are we so easily and quickly jaded?
It’s ironic that the right uses the video of Nick’s death in service of its cause. Nick’s father says that his son “died for the sins of George Bush”.
It’s also telling that the right maintains that the abused prisoners don’t deserve mercy because “most have American blood on their hands”. Yet according to the Red Cross, almost all of the prisoners are only guilty of being in the area when our soldiers swept up civilians. Sure it’s easy to want to take out our frustrations on the terrorist monsters, but you don’t beat your children because your boss yelled at you.
These Iraqis hearts and minds are lost forever.
I say bring all war criminals to justice, be they prison guards, terrorists or the architects of a needless war premised on lies.
Fishmael
May 19, 2004 at 12:24 am
25If you want to find the “bad apples”, in this case, look at the top of the tree.
Jerry
May 19, 2004 at 1:13 pm
26Just ran into an interesting fact. At his commencement address at Westminster College in Missouri, Cheney said, after essentially equating Bush with Churchill, “In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, the mastermind of 9/11, first proposed to bin Laden that they use hijacked airliners to attack targets in the U.S.”
If they knew that, how can they claim, as has been repeatedly done before the 9/11 hearings, that there was no knowledge of specific types of acts Al Queda might use against us and therefore no action the administration could have taken to prevent it?