You know how sometimes you read something that points out flaws in your argument and you're pissed off cause you thought your argument was bulletproof? Well, when I read Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post, I was pretty pissed, but not because he showed me why I'm wrong, but because of his pure stupidity. He tries to poke holes through liberal arguments, but fails miserably. It's painful, because he so clearly doesn't realize how fuckin stupid he is. His three main points, and why they are wrong:
Point 1: Janet Reno fucked up Waco and didn't get fired, so why should Rummy?
This is kind of a tricky one, these situations do have one thing in common, ignorance of the beliefs of those they challenged. The FBI, led by Janet Reno, ignored advice of theologists and played directly in to the reality created by David Koresh. Interestingly enough, Rumsfeld and gang are doing the same exact thing with Osama bin Laden by doing everything he said we would do. Yet Janet Reno acknowledged her ignorance. Rummy and gang still don't get it. But the bigger point here is the difference in intentions. If we are talking intentions, these two events aren't even comparable. In both situations, we acted hastily and without regard to the beliefs of either group, however, in Iraq (and elsewhere) there existed a systematic pattern of DELIBERATE torture and abuse that WAS known by Rummy and nothing was done, except maybe for the gathering up of those rogue cameras. Nice try with this one, Chuck, you did get me thinking, but sorry, no holes yet. Too bad, too. It was the best one you had.
Point 2: Liberals called for an apology from Bush for the prison abuse and when one was given it was ignored
Much easier...Bush was given ample opportunity to apologe directly to the Iraqi people (albeit on US run propaganda television), instead he passed up that chance and chose to apologize to the King of Jordan, the neighboring country. In other words, Chuck, I come over to your house, sexually and physically humiliate you and your family beyond belief and then go next door and tell your neighbor that I'm sorry it happened. Would you be satisfied with that apology? No, I can't believe you would.
Point 3: The abuse was only among an isolated few...
This point almost needs no response because it has become so evident with all the reports, such as this of two Britons and an Australian held at gitmo, or here, which discusses the systemic abuse in Afghanistan, not to mention the over 1600 photos gov't officials had the chance to view on wednesday, it's CLEARLY not isolated. I mean, seriously, who the hell are you kidding? Further, in most work environments, employees respond to the tone set by their superior, in the military I imagine this is even more extreme. Therefore, either the superiors (all the way up) have no control in Iraq or they simply allowed it. Neither of which is acceptable.
So there you go.
For more info on Waco, Frontline has a great piece available online here