Tweet
The Bush Years: Outrage,
After Outrage, After Outrage
Asked to name the Outrage of the Week,
how could anyone possibly choose?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
10-14-5
AUSTIN, Texas -- On one of those television gong shows that passes for journalism, the panelists used to have to pick an Outrage of the Week. Then, each performer would wax indignant about his or her choice for 60 seconds or so. If someone asked me to name the Outrage of the Week about now, I'd have a coronary. How could anyone possibly choose?
I suppose the frontrunner is the anti-torture amendment. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.
This may strike you as a "goes without saying" proposition--the amendment passed the Senate 90 to 9. The United States has been signing anti-torture treaties under Democrats and Republicans for at least 50 years. But the Bush administration actually managed to find some weasel words to create a loophole in this longstanding commitment to civilized behavior.
According to the Bushies, if the United States is holding a prisoner on foreign soil, our soldiers can still subject him or her to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment--the very forms of torture used by the soldiers who were later prosecuted for their conduct at Abu Ghraib. Does this make any sense, moral or common?
So deeply does President Bush feel our country, despite all its treaty commitments, has a right to torture that he has threatened to veto the bill if it passes. This would be the first time in five years he has ever vetoed anything. Think about it: Five years of stupefying pork, ideological nonsense, dumb administrative ideas, fiscal idiocy, misbegotten energy programs--and the first thing the man vetoes is a bill to pay our soldiers because it carries an amendment saying, once again, that this country does not torture prisoners.
This is the United States of America. It is our country, not George W. Bush's personal property. The United States of America still stands for the rights of man, for freedom, dignity and justice. We do not torture helpless prisoners. Our soldiers are not the Nazi Waffen SS, not the North Vietnamese who tortured McCain and others for years on end, not bestial Argentinean fascists, not the Khmer Rouge.
Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was such a horrible brute that he tortured people. This is beyond disgusting. The House Republicans, who have no shame, will try to weaken McCain's amendment. They need to hear from decent Republicans all over this country. Don't leave this hideous stain on your party's name. This is not what America stands for. We've had more loathsome and more dangerous enemies than Al Qaeda and managed to defeat them without resorting to torture.
And leading the charge in the House will be Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that pillar of moral rectitude and Christian mercy. Wait a minute: Didn't DeLay have to step down from his leadership position after he got indicted? Well, yes, but some step-downs are more down than others. There was "The Hammer" in full glory Friday, twisting arms and working the floor on behalf of a real cutie of a bill to benefit the oil companies.
Even Republicans revolted. As Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said, "We are enriching people, but we are not doing anything to give the little guy a break." I have become inured to Bush's idea of foreign policy. But the policy does result in some lovely ironies. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the highly respected head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Quite apart from whether you support Bush or not, ElBaradei and the IAEA deserve the honor--they have been both diligent and effective.
ElBaradei was right when he repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and has said the day the United States invaded "was the saddest in my life."
But you know our boy George: not for him the gracious, "Gee, you were right, and we were wrong after all." Nope, after ElBaradei was proved right, Bush tried to have him fired. And the man in charge of carrying out the campaign to have the guy fired for being right? John Bolton, now our ambassador to the United Nations.
Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas
LINKY
After Outrage, After Outrage
Asked to name the Outrage of the Week,
how could anyone possibly choose?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
10-14-5
AUSTIN, Texas -- On one of those television gong shows that passes for journalism, the panelists used to have to pick an Outrage of the Week. Then, each performer would wax indignant about his or her choice for 60 seconds or so. If someone asked me to name the Outrage of the Week about now, I'd have a coronary. How could anyone possibly choose?
I suppose the frontrunner is the anti-torture amendment. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.
This may strike you as a "goes without saying" proposition--the amendment passed the Senate 90 to 9. The United States has been signing anti-torture treaties under Democrats and Republicans for at least 50 years. But the Bush administration actually managed to find some weasel words to create a loophole in this longstanding commitment to civilized behavior.
According to the Bushies, if the United States is holding a prisoner on foreign soil, our soldiers can still subject him or her to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment--the very forms of torture used by the soldiers who were later prosecuted for their conduct at Abu Ghraib. Does this make any sense, moral or common?
So deeply does President Bush feel our country, despite all its treaty commitments, has a right to torture that he has threatened to veto the bill if it passes. This would be the first time in five years he has ever vetoed anything. Think about it: Five years of stupefying pork, ideological nonsense, dumb administrative ideas, fiscal idiocy, misbegotten energy programs--and the first thing the man vetoes is a bill to pay our soldiers because it carries an amendment saying, once again, that this country does not torture prisoners.
This is the United States of America. It is our country, not George W. Bush's personal property. The United States of America still stands for the rights of man, for freedom, dignity and justice. We do not torture helpless prisoners. Our soldiers are not the Nazi Waffen SS, not the North Vietnamese who tortured McCain and others for years on end, not bestial Argentinean fascists, not the Khmer Rouge.
Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was such a horrible brute that he tortured people. This is beyond disgusting. The House Republicans, who have no shame, will try to weaken McCain's amendment. They need to hear from decent Republicans all over this country. Don't leave this hideous stain on your party's name. This is not what America stands for. We've had more loathsome and more dangerous enemies than Al Qaeda and managed to defeat them without resorting to torture.
And leading the charge in the House will be Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that pillar of moral rectitude and Christian mercy. Wait a minute: Didn't DeLay have to step down from his leadership position after he got indicted? Well, yes, but some step-downs are more down than others. There was "The Hammer" in full glory Friday, twisting arms and working the floor on behalf of a real cutie of a bill to benefit the oil companies.
Even Republicans revolted. As Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said, "We are enriching people, but we are not doing anything to give the little guy a break." I have become inured to Bush's idea of foreign policy. But the policy does result in some lovely ironies. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the highly respected head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, won the Nobel Peace Prize. Quite apart from whether you support Bush or not, ElBaradei and the IAEA deserve the honor--they have been both diligent and effective.
ElBaradei was right when he repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and has said the day the United States invaded "was the saddest in my life."
But you know our boy George: not for him the gracious, "Gee, you were right, and we were wrong after all." Nope, after ElBaradei was proved right, Bush tried to have him fired. And the man in charge of carrying out the campaign to have the guy fired for being right? John Bolton, now our ambassador to the United Nations.
Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas
LINKY
Comment