Comments for Torture, Impeachment and a Vietnam Veteran's Tears at http://www.pacificfreepress.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.pacificfreepress.com Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:46:16 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/426-torture-impeachment-and-a-vietnam-veterans-tears.html#comment-317 Back in the fall of 2004, the first Kerry/Bush Presidential debate set aside an hour and a half for discussion of foreign affairs and national security policy. As you may recall, this debate (the one when Little George had the mysterious bulge in the back of his suit jacket) may have been the high point of the whole Kerry campaign. Incredibly, 90 minutes passed and not a single question was asked and not a single mention was made (by moderator Jim Lehrer of NPR or either candidate)of the Geneva Conventions, Abu Ghraib, torture, or the disasterous international backlash that was already a matter of public record resulting from the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation practices. How was this possible? The ground rules for Presidential debates are apparently set by the DNC and RNC campaign honchos. I believe it was Vernon Jordan who filled this role for the Kerry camp. It is obvious why George Bush would want to avoid all mention of torture. It is plausible that the main stream media felt uncomfortable pressing torture as a matter for public discussion, believing that such an airing might risk US POW's or inflame Muslim sensibilities. But why on earth did the brain trust of the Democratic Party (those brilliant beltway strategists always attuned to framing whatever issues might move the American electorate, especially independent voters) decide to never mention the Geneva Conventions and Bush's personal torture/enemy combatant directives - NOT EVEN ONCE - in the entire 2004 Presidential campaign? One would think that piling captives naked in homoerotic stacks, masking them in womens' panties, or clamping electrodes unto their genitals could be framed by George Lakoff as a viable family values issue. During the '04 campaign I spoke to several evangelical Christians, all rabid Bush supporters, who were very deeply and severely troubled by the torture revelations. They could barely bring themselves to forgive Bush, usually by resorting to the bad apple theory. But the Gonzales memo to Bush, and Bush's classified "enemy combatant" exception to Geneva were already in the public domain. So why did the Dems give the shrub a pass on Abu Ghraib? Better yet, why should a Democratic Congress continue to treat this simple, straightfoward, transcendant moral issue as a non-issue to this day? - Bill from Saginaw Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:22:23 +0100 http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/426-torture-impeachment-and-a-vietnam-veterans-tears.html#comment-313 Although I agree with everything you said, I sadly will only disagree with you on the point of those responsible being taken to task. The new Congress, and I really hope I'm wrong about this, is still composed of corporate shills who have proven in the past (albeit not the new ones incoming yet) thay they are not removed from cronyism, bribes, nepotism and even actions as egregious as voting FOR the "torture bill", not to mention the Iraq "war". I can only bring to mind a few who consistently have faced the fire and stood against the bush crime family. To them goes my perpetual admiration. For the rest, I am, at best, guardedly optimistic in that seeing as some of our "big guns" like Clinton herself, have made fiascos of themselves already and provided much of the gutless approbation necessary for bush and his criminal band to succeed in the almost miraculous way they have. I said before, I agree with you. I still am not real convinced, however, that the "New Congress" has the intestinal fortitude to bring these bastards to justice. Pelosi sure as hell doesn't inspire much confidence yet, does she? Let's hope they (the New Congress) grow a huge pair of cajones and do what really is the only thing that will even begin to re-establish the U.S.'s credibility in the world. The impeachment and imprisonment of bush, cheney, rumsfeld, and rice. - jack Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:58:27 +0100