Yeah, which is why I think the Bush Administration made a huge mistake by having such high-level officials (even the President himself!) address the issue. The media would have dropped it long ago if they never got to talk to anyone about it but some Army PR colonel.

"The Left, which didn't care that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were being tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein..."

I beg to differ. Most of us were concerned and outraged by Saddam's actions. However (and I'm just speaking for myself, though I don't think I'm alone on this issue), the reason why many of us opposed going to war with Iraq was that it was NOT fought for the purpose of liberating the Iraqis, but for the purpose of punishing Saddam for having weapons of mass destruction (which there was no conclusive proof of at the time).
If Bush had made the case that we were attacking Hussein [primarily] for the cause of liberating the Iraqi's, I myself probably would have been in favor of it. (as I am not a pacifist).

As is was, though, when the war was being debated, the primary motive was the WMDs. Bush himself did talk about Saddam being a tyrant when talking to the American people, but as far as technicalities(sic) are concerned, we went to war because Saddam "failed to remove his weapons of mass destruction".

It's also interesting to note that Daniel Pipes (who is definitely not "some Leftist", felt the same way:

"Iraqi gains are very welcome, but they come as a happy byproduct of the coalition pursuing its own interests, not as the primary goal."

"Nor should wars be launched for humanitarian reasons alone."

(these quotations came from)
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1091

Sorry for the long rant, but I felt I had to correct the stereotype that liberal people lack a sense of moral outrage. Have a good day.

Umm, err, no.

"The left...didn't care" Propaganda BS. A lie and you know it - "you conservatives" have to make everything partisan.

Also, the "small fraction" bit is blatantly false. The Red Cross reports that it is a wide-spread American tactic. Lemme guess - the Red Cross now becomes a "radical left-biased" organization? Sorry, being correct doesn't make people liberal, though the two usually go hand - in - hand. Basic news-reading skills.

Andy's post is ad hominem so it's not worth responding to but Ben's post is MOST revealing of the left. He basically says it would be ok to support the War on Terror if only Bush had said Saddam's torture was the reason.

Catch that?

Saddam's torture is ok if Bush says the war is about WMDs but not if Bush says it's about torture. That's damn poor moral reasoning but mainstream lefty thinking. Another example of how the left thinks American voters are ignorant and why Kerry will lose in November and the US House and Senate are very, very safe.

I'm still waiting for them to wake up. However, Najaf looks promising.

Let's be honest. The Left, which didn't care that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were being tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein, is only professing outrage about the events at the Abu Ghraib Prison because it's a chance to undermine the Bush administration and the War on Terror.

OK, let's he honest: your statement tries to deflect the focus of the issue away from the people responsible to those who had nothing to do with it. And to absolutely prove your statement, of course, would require mind reading - therefore you don't have to defend it.

Don't ever forget that America liberated 24 million Iraqis.

Are you saying that somehow minimizes the torture we've imposed? Or does it just put it into perspective and that makes it better?

Congrats Bill,

You are a magnet for Bush=Saddam-types like Al Hedstrom. Tell me Al, where are the mass graves and child prisons over which the US Army is presiding? Since I'm heading over there in November (as an officer in a Nat'l Guard Medical Unit), I'd love to know.

Al Hedstrom reflects mainstream Dem voter thought which, as I said above, will result in a Kerry defeat in November. Carry on.

Ben and Hedstrom typify the Lefty mentality--AmeriKKa is evil, lowlife Lefty dictators are great leaders. Kennedy, Levin, and Dayton showed their true colors in the hearing today. The Left is actually engaging in treason today--they are encouraging the enemy to kill our soldiers, and they are working towards an American defeat. They are nothing but traitors.

I generally agree with this. But before we get 'holier than thou' with the liberals, let's consider that conservatives are not completely consistent in their outrage -- ranting against oppression by, say, Castro or Saddam much more often than oppression by African leaders or right-wing strong men.

Mark G.,

Most of the leaders to which you refer tend to believe in centralized control of the government which is decidedly NOT right-wing. Similar to why Fascists in the 1930's called themselves National Socialists not, say, National Libertarians. The bad guys you're talking about are not known for using violence to force free markets. The "right-wing" strongman thing has always struck me as a bit of a meme, though an extremely popular one.

Are you saying that somehow minimizes the torture we've imposed? Or does it just put it into perspective and that makes it better?

I think he's saying the situations we've heard about so far are already minimal in comparison to what Saddam did for 30 years to his own people. The liberation of 24 million Iraqis towers over anything we've seen so far out of Abu Ghraib.

It has nothing to do with a changed perspective. It's simply reality.

Michael I echo your sentiment. There are so many things I don't like about Bush, one being his political correctness. All he had to do was let his people comment and give sound bites for this, and he issue an apology--only ONE--to Americans in general, encouraging us to keep the faith in the cause.

Funny, I don't recall the mass graves, rape rooms, and torture chambers being a front-burner issue on September 10, 2001. The attacks on New York and Washington came out of the blue for almost everyone.

I don't recall any water-cooler discussions about how we should race to the aid of the opressed Iraqui masses. In fact, it seems that Iraq was and is the only place where opression has risen to the threshold of action for us and our allies.

This particular war was opportunistically undertaken because the neoconservatives had to scratch their thirty-year itch and American business had to go along for the ride.

They bit it off and we have to chew it.

As we all know, 9/11 shook us all up and made us take a good look at where terrorism is bred, and just how oppressive the governments were over there.

Just because it wasn't water-cooler discussion on 9/10 doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. Or important. Or desirous of change. Just that 9/11 put it into focus as a vital need.

I agree with the post in general, but it is too early to know whether what happened at the prison was merely an isolated incident. The International Red Cross says abuse was widespread. We shall see.

Lance,

I think you should have actually read my post. First of all, I have no problem with the War on Terror. Strike one there.

Second, I NEVER said that torture was OK. Don't put words in my mouth.

Finally, now that we are in Iraq, I favor keeping up our committment to helping the country. Despite my critism of the perpetrators of the abuse going on, the fact remains that it would get worse if we pulled out.

BTW, do you favor regime change in Zimbabwe? I certainly do, the leader there is also a tyrant.

John,

Stop lying. I think America (you also need to get some education, looking at your poor spelling) is a great country, and I would never support any dictator, left wing or right wing. If you're trying to pigeonhole me into some ideology, you'd be wrong. I have my own ideas, and I don't just believe everything either the media or the government tells me to believe.

To expect any credibility with this nonsense, Mr. Hobbs should correct his take on the article above in which he lies, stating that Bredesen signed into law new taxes ...

Lies told do not help other lies down the road ...

"As we all know, 9/11 shook us all up and made us take a good look at where terrorism is bred, and just how oppressive the governments were over there."

My take on 9/11 is that yes, it did shake us all up. But it didn't make us learn about the root causes of terror. We saw the region that the international terrorists were primarily coming from and we decided to bomb it. We thought that by conducting a military campaign against several nations we could stop terrorism.

However we overlooked two key points:

1) Terrorism is domestic as well. In fact, excluding 9/11, domestic terrorists are responsible for far more damage done on American soil.

2) The great majority of the people in the nations we have invaded were not terrorist supporters. However, by bombing their homes, killing their relatives and loved ones, and treating them like subhumans, we have increased the likelihood that they will support actions against the US in the future.

Since 9/11, we have been doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. We reacted to a small faction of extremists by using overwhelming force on the regions that they inhabit. This lets them say 'look, we were right. The Americans are evil! They have bombed innocent people.'

The war on terror cannot be carried out solely with bombs and bullets--and it is because of this that I sincerely fear for the future of America and the world.

One correction to my comment above: "...by using overwhelming force on the regions that they inhabit."

Iraq is not a region that they used to inhabit, but it has since become one.

We saw the region that the international terrorists were primarily coming from and we decided to bomb it.

You really think it was that simple. I mean, really???

We thought that by conducting a military campaign against several nations we could stop terrorism.

Again, assuming the methods and goals were that simple means you're only understanding what you want to understand.

We know you can't stop terrorism. But by assisting the region in which terrorism is bred by raising their standard of living out of the Dark Ages, we can significantly - significantly - reduce the likelihood of other large-scale terrorist attacks on the US.

However we overlooked two key points:

1) Terrorism is domestic as well. In fact, excluding 9/11, domestic terrorists are responsible for far more damage done on American soil.

Not sure why this is a key point in this discussion, but yes that's true. But the potential for far worse damage from foreign terrorists is much higher now.

2) The great majority of the people in the nations we have invaded were not terrorist supporters.

We were not attacking that vast majority - we were liberating them by removing their corrupt leaders, who contributed financially and in many other ways to that foreign terrorism.

However, by bombing their homes,

We bombed their homes? On purpose? Just out of general meanness?

killing their relatives and loved ones,

We killed their relatives and loved ones? On purpose? Just out of general meanness?

Unless those relatives and loved ones were shooting at us, that is...

and treating them like subhumans,

The entire population? All of them - every one? Of Iraq and Afghanistan both?

we have increased the likelihood that they will support actions against the US in the future.

Adding the answers to all those charges above don't lead anywhere near that conclusion.

Since 9/11, we have been doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. We reacted to a small faction of extremists by using overwhelming force on the regions that they inhabit.

That wasn't what he wanted us to do. He wanted us to lie back and fret. We didn't, and now he's on the run. Good plan, Osama.

This lets them say 'look, we were right. The Americans are evil! They have bombed innocent people.'

As opposed, of course, to the murderers of Paul Berg. What cause do they have to say "The Americans are evil", when they should say, "Some American guards are evil"

The war on terror cannot be carried out solely with bombs and bullets--and it is because of this that I sincerely fear for the future of America and the world.

Nope, not forever, but it has to right now.

For the hundredth time I want to remind all of you moralistic Republican hawks that it was during RONALD REAGAN'S presidency that Saddam committed the majority of his atrocities...

And, since Saddam was an ally of the Reagan administration at that time, we must assume that the Reagan administration tolerated his murder of all those Shiites. I did not hear any or you guys protesting our support for Iraq in its brutal war with Iran during the 80s.

Why didn’t any of you care about his war crimes while he was committing them? Do a little Google searching and you can find photographs of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and presenting him with gold spurs from Ronald Reagan (literally). Are any of you a little angry with Ronald Reagan for allowing this to happen twenty years ago? Don’t any of you want to ask Donald Rumsfeld why he was so friendly with Saddam while he was committing such terrible crimes against humanity?

Have you been asleep, a? This was gone over again and again almost a year ago. Iran was a much bigger threat than Iraq and it was in our interest to prevent Iran from defeating Iraq in that war. And at least the "moralistic Republican hawks" are trying to clean up the mess; the left seems interested in not only not cleaning up, but letting it worsen until it becomes a threat to us.