The President once again confounded his critics and rose to the occasion last night to deliver an informative and at times inspiring speech in defense of his war policies.
It’s nothing less than what we’ve come to expect. Bush masterfully wove the 9/11 thread into the Iraq thread, something that always drives his critics through the roof because they know Bush’s support jumps whenever he brings up that horrible day in relation to the Iraq war. It’s something he’s gotten away from in the months since the election and it was well past time for him to draw the pictures and connect the dots once again.
In short, it was a great speech, one of his best. But now I’d like to see the President give the next speech, the speech that will cover what everyone is talking about and thinking about.
Let’s call it “The Torture Speech.”
I can understand that the speech last night was not the time nor the place to bring up prisoner abuse. But it’s an issue that the President himself must start addressing. Assurances from Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brass just isn’t good enough. Simply saying that the detainees are being treated well isn’t good enough. Ignoring an issue that the rest of the world is concerned about, that the Arab press is skewering us with and undermining our war effort, and that even many of the President’s strongest supporters are talking about isn’t good enough.
The issue demands Presidential leadership. It cries out for Presidential reassurances. And it requires an executive department accounting, something that only the President can give.
There are investigations, reviews, prosecutions, court martials, and allegations from detainees and their lawyers that are all out there, dragging down our image abroad and sapping the will to fight of our people at home. Only the President, using the power and prestige of his office, can sort out the wheat from the chaff, the lies from the truth, in order to assure the world and the American people that everything is being done to correct a situation where the vast majority of the world believes the United States military is systematically and deliberately committing heinous war crimes.
Clearly there has been abuse, perhaps even widespread mistreatment of prisoners. Just as certainly, there have been isolated incidents of torture and even murder. For the President to remain silent and not get out front of this issue and lead may be politically the right thing to do but it is morally wrong. If the President were to acknowledge wrongdoing – with a specificity that’s been lacking up to this point – as well as outline the remedies already in place and reiterate American policy toward detainees, it would go a long way toward reassuring the American people and silencing some of the arguments of his critics.
Yes, his critics will still use the issue as a political club. But some of the power of their arguments will dissipate in the face of the President’s resolve to not only fix the situation as it currently stands but also work to see that such practices do not happen in the future. In short, he could cutoff the legs from underneath his critics arguments and diffuse a lot of unnecessary criticism. And, it would reassure his supporters who have been wavering over these last several weeks.
Finally, some resolution to the legal limbo many of the detainees are held in must occur. The President must first acknowledge this problem, something the Justice Department and the Pentagon have been unwilling to do up to this point. Then, common decency and the rule of law demand that we solve this issue. Many of the terrorists have been held for more than 3 years without a resolution of their status. “Enemy combatants” was an easy label to hang on the terrorists while the fighting was going on but now it’s time to find some designation more permanent. Whether it will be Congress who decides or the Pentagon or even the Department of Justice is of little consequence as long as the determination is made to solve this problem soon. And only the President should be making these kinds of decisions.
I have no doubt this will be the hardest speech the President will ever have to make. But it’s a speech that must be given. Until he does, all the hard work, all the sacrifices by our men and women and their families will be for naught. The fact is, this issue is a monkey wrench that’s mucking up the machinery of war. Only the President can convince the world that the United States really is serious about this issue and is doing its best to solve it.
The reputation of the United States and our armed forces demand no less.
Cross Posted at Blogger News Network
8:20 am
Rick,
Have you lost your mind? I don’t care. The only people that worry about these people are Leftists. They were picked up on a battle field, done deal. When the entire world is democratic, then we can talk about detainees.
8:23 am
Have you lost your mind?
I certainly hope not.
My reasoning is simple. It’s a drag on the war effort. Anything that’s a drag on the war effort must be eliminated.
It hurts us at home and abroad. And Bush is the only one who can make the issue go away.
8:46 am
Rick,
The only people who care about detainees are liberals. You are singing their song. Why not ask him to talk about the Downing Street Memo? This is the last struggle of the Liberty Civilization. Natan Sharansky understands what is at stake.
.has convinced me how easy it is for those living in a free society to lose moral clarity.
Sadly, I have watched many of those who yearn for peace and who champion human rights turn their backs on the freedom that makes both possible.
9:07 am
Like David McCullough said, if we had today’s MSM during the Revolutionary War, we would have lost.
9:23 am
Rick—
I’m with Fritz. It’s only a drag if you regard what the New York Slimes editorial board says as important. It’s also not much concern to the public. (See the Powerline post: Americans Heart Gitmo.) Also see the most recent menu collection, with exact calorie counts and nutrition listed, like the vicious bastards slinging excrement at guards all have their own personal trainers!
The more I read about the place and see what we’re doing, the more opposed I am to it: it should be much, much more misery-inducing.
9:47 am
Interesting take on this. I agree that the air needs to be cleared. The lefties have muddied the waters with their rhetoric, and they need to be put back in their place.
12:49 pm
You are usually very well reasoned and fairly even-handed despite the name of the blog (which I love btw). I do not understand why you are applauding the president for conflating the issues of 9/11 and Iraq. Its not just the liberals that get their knickers in a knot when this administration lies. You, Bush and I all know that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. However, he lied to the country explicity (about WMDs) and implicitly (9/11 conflation). While I do not think costs (human and otherwise) of this war outweight the benefits, Bush could have made a sufficiently compelling case if he had been honesst.
12:56 pm
I’ve written many times that if you think Bush lied about WMD you must think him the stupidest politician in history. Lying about WMD’s and then deliberately invading knowing full well that there are none there and none will be found? In an election year?
President’s may be dumb but there has never been a dumb politician as President. Why would Bush hand his opponent a potential election winning issue like that? (A few tens of thousands of votes in Ohio and he would have lost).
As for the 9/11 – Iraq connection I should have been clearer in connecting the dots between 9/11 and the potential for catostrphic harm Saddam could have done us not any known involvement of Saddam’s in 9/11. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11 – even the Downing Street minutes say that. In that respect, Iraq and 9/11 are connected.
2:00 pm
Rick,
I am also concerned about the issue of torture. I think it is detracting us from the war and it is being used by our enemies (domestic and foreign) as propaganda.
But I think we should debate from a logical and scientific approach – not an emotional one that associate with the Left. I started a very long and detail post on the subject. I am a former interrogator in Iraq and I am very interested on future interrogation policy because of the various scandals.
http://state-of-flux.blogspot.com/2005/06/serious-discussion-on-interrogation.html
4:58 pm
But, Rick, it is far easier for left-wing, lockstep lemmings to parrot the talking points/marching orders of the Hate Bush confederation than to research/process actual facts. As for connecting the dots—the President clearly stated that Saddam and his henchmen shared the same IDEOLOGY that drove the 9/11 butchers to murder our fellow citizens, that ideology being the extermination/conversion of all non-Muslims. Sadly, the lemming “little gray cells” appear incapable of processing such a complex concept. Thus, the fact that Saddam himself was not piloting one of those planes on 9/11 is irrefutable proof that Bush lied.
10:10 pm
I do not think Bush the “stupidest politician in history” or anywhere close. While he is clearly not intellectual by nature, I think him rather shrewd. I doubt he lied in the more blatant way you took my meaning. Rather, I do believe he manipulated the data through pressure on his resources and through filtering of the intel available. Such manipulation probably occured on both conscious and unconsious levels. Regardless, everyone is responsible for their actions, regardless of motivation or awareness.
I take your point that the invasion of Iraq was a direct consequence of 9/11. Certainly, that is true. But why? Not because Iraq had any involvment in the attacks on our country. Rather, because the president and his staff decided to use the opportunity presented by the events of 9/11 to push their already established agenda – get Sadaam. Now, getting Sadaam was an objective of some merit. However, I find we have paid to high a cost. Back to the point – Bush does not mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same speach to broadcast his opportunism. He does so to suggest there was some DIRECT causal relationship. There was not. You know that. Yet, you suggest that a thinking conservative should endorse Bush’s disingenuousness. I cannot. To my way of thinking, a thinking conservative in favor of the war should be glad we did it but frustrated and disappointed by the poor way this administration went about the action.
11:52 pm
Rick,
I think “The Torture Speech” is not the way to go for a couple of reasons.
I doubt it will diffuse anything. Many on the Left and in the MSM (pardon the redundancy) still claim “Bush Lied” about WMDs. They still think Dan Rather’s forged documents are the real deal. They believe 280 Swiftboat veterans all lied. They believe Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia. Etc, Etc. It’s almost gotten to the point that if President Bush said the sky was blue, the Left (here in this country and abroad) would say yeah, it is but it’s a Karl Rove trick. I just don’t see how you can reason with those people.
I agree with Minh-Duc that torture is not something you can easily define. Minh-Duc points to current and proposed interrogation techniques on his blog. I betcha 90% of the Deaniacs would say those techniques in Category I, II & III are torture—hell, they’d definitely think the Army Ranger School is torture.
I’m not sure we want to define torture, but if we do, do we really want the President defining what torture is and isn’t?
Let’s say we define torture. Does that mean torture should never be used? Are we prepared to commit to that? I’m not. If someone is holding my kid hostage and I’ve caught the kidnapper and I find out he’s buried my kid alive, but won’t tell me where, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna do some things to that SOB that he never dreamed of and he’s gonna tell me where my kid is or he’s gonna die ugly, very slowly. I wouldn’t hesitate. Yeah, that’s all personal and emotional. Damn straight.
Now, consider our Delta guys or the FBI or whoever have caught one of Osama’s boys and they find out that a dirty bomb is in one of our cities, set to detonate, but Osamaboy won’t tell us which city or when. We know that it’s going to kill thousands of people immediately and several hundred thousand more as a result of radiation poisoning. What can we do? If Category I, II & III interrogation techniques don’t work, what then?
My point here is that I don’t think that that should be open for public discussion. I’m not even comfortable with ANY interrogation techniques being unclassified. I don’t want the assholes to know what might happen to them. If we start getting into a big open debate about interrogation techniques and torture, I think we do more harm than good.
I think we’ve been way too forthcoming on such matters as it is.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was lack of supervision at a time when supervision was most needed—i.e. a bunch of untrained/poorly trained soldiers trying to do the jobs of professionals. The first sign that it was a Mickey Mouse operation was that photographs got out. What professional interrogator in his right mind would ever allow personal cameras in an interrogation facility? None.
Does the military intelligence community need oversight on these issues? Yes. And that oversight should be taking place in closed hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I’m sorry for the length of this. I can see where you’re coming from, but I hope you can also see where I’m coming from.
12:38 am
I am with Merry Mad Monk. I would go so far as to say that torture is a necessary ingredient in our military arsenal if we are to win on the level of the enemy. I’m not saying that torture is traditionally American or part of our heritage per se, but that it is a tool we have come to rely on under certain circumstances. I don’t think Bush should give any speeches on it because (1) he would have to admit that we practice it (2) it might not go over well with some voters.
12:38 am
The war in Iraq was undertaken for a number of reasons, including the numerous reasons spread throughout the 21 separate preamble paragraphs in the “Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.†At the time, it seems like there was quite a bit of discussion about U.N. Resolutions that had been broken or ignored by Iraq (with the obvious implication they we could no longer ignore rouge states that posed WMD threats). Obviously, the connections to terrorists are even stronger now. I think the President’s speech was great, and hit the mark.
Regarding “The Torture Speech,†I am in favor of ending the torture speech by the liberals. Their desperate attempts to score political points with certain elements of their base (MoveOn.org comes to mind) is apparent. And it is getting old!
I think the president should announce that he will be returning all of the “detainees†to their country of capture, put them all in airplanes, and set them free at 20,000 feet once the planes are over the detainee’s “homeland.†Problem solved! Obviously not going to happen, but it gives you some idea of how sick I am of an issue where terrorist scumbags are treated with “kid gloves,†and America (and the U.S. military) is given a black eye for its trouble.
5:01 pm
Supper: 6/30/2005
Try one of these specials with your supper: Right Wing Nut House is awaiting another speech. Ogre defends the 2nd Amendment. Texican Tattler finds Dilbert prophetic. The Therapist has a guest column by Rosie. Yes, that Rosie. Nzyme (Tursiops Times)