Wednesday, October 12, 2005


Molly Ivins, chronic Bush-Basher, writes in her latest column that the G.O.P. has stood up for torture.
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 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.
The problem with Molly Ivins is that she, like most liberals, doesn't trust our military to act with wisdom and compassion as well as with valor. She thinks of them as bloodthirsty goons who just grab who ever is near and force them to make human pyramids.

I trust our troops, and so I know that most of those who were in Abu Ghraib and in other such facilities are terrorists who would kill me and Molly Ivins as soon as look at us. I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about the fates of such BLOODTHIRSTY monsters. It just doesn't strike me as morally relevant. If President Bush says we need to torture such people to keep ourselves safe, so be it.

Oh, and Ms. Ivans, calling the Bush Administration the "bushies" shows a lack of character. Whatever you think of them, they do deserve a minimum of respect.

No comments: