pühapäev, mai 16, 2004
Blowback
Jonah Goldberg's on Kurtz's show right now warning that the conservative blowback on Abu Ghraib is coming in the next couple of weeks. They're going to be spreading photos of Saddam's abuse of prisoners. Because, you know, nobody had any idea Saddam was capable of torturing people. I imagine this will be accompanied by all kinds of "Where's the outrage?" idiocy.
My response to that is, "Where's the point?"
I mean, really, what the hell is the point they're trying to make? Saddam was worse than us? Really? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN SADDAM, JACKASS! The story is about American soldiers abusing and torturing prisoners. What is done elsewhere by others isn't relevant. All that matters is what US soldiers did and whether that's acceptable. Why can't the conservative mind stay focused on that issue? Where did all of this desire for nuance come from? Is it just because it reflects badly on Bush and Rumsfeld? Does the fact that Saddam had prisoners eyes gouged in any way change the fact that an American soldier raped an Iraqi with a chemical light? The behavior is the behavior. The sudden conservative adherence to moral relativism is rather bizarre and offensive.
But then, Goldberg continues to insist the media underplayed the Berg story in relation to Abu Ghraib, while also acknowledging that what happened to Berg is far worse than anything in the pictures released in the press so far. Has he considered the reason nobody's showing the beheading is because it is far worse? I maintain that the worst images from Abu Ghraib have not been shown in the mainstream media. The media has been entirely consistent in what it's willing to show. Goldberg undermined his own argument that there's a double standard by admitting the actions depicted aren't equal.
|
Jonah Goldberg's on Kurtz's show right now warning that the conservative blowback on Abu Ghraib is coming in the next couple of weeks. They're going to be spreading photos of Saddam's abuse of prisoners. Because, you know, nobody had any idea Saddam was capable of torturing people. I imagine this will be accompanied by all kinds of "Where's the outrage?" idiocy.
My response to that is, "Where's the point?"
I mean, really, what the hell is the point they're trying to make? Saddam was worse than us? Really? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN SADDAM, JACKASS! The story is about American soldiers abusing and torturing prisoners. What is done elsewhere by others isn't relevant. All that matters is what US soldiers did and whether that's acceptable. Why can't the conservative mind stay focused on that issue? Where did all of this desire for nuance come from? Is it just because it reflects badly on Bush and Rumsfeld? Does the fact that Saddam had prisoners eyes gouged in any way change the fact that an American soldier raped an Iraqi with a chemical light? The behavior is the behavior. The sudden conservative adherence to moral relativism is rather bizarre and offensive.
But then, Goldberg continues to insist the media underplayed the Berg story in relation to Abu Ghraib, while also acknowledging that what happened to Berg is far worse than anything in the pictures released in the press so far. Has he considered the reason nobody's showing the beheading is because it is far worse? I maintain that the worst images from Abu Ghraib have not been shown in the mainstream media. The media has been entirely consistent in what it's willing to show. Goldberg undermined his own argument that there's a double standard by admitting the actions depicted aren't equal.
