Letters to the Editor about Jeff Jacoby's Web exclusive column
Is Jeff Jacoby so out of touch with reality that he buys this drivel that the Bush Administration is doling out? Does he actually believe that this torture at Abu Garib was limited to a few soldiers? An articulate and sophisticated writer like Jeff cannot be so naïve as to think that these 20-year-old kids decided to torture prisoners without direct orders from their superiors -- the heads of the American intelligence community. Jeff needs to take off his conservative Republican rose-colored glasses and look reality in the face. Ted Kennedy was just speaking the truth about the Abu Garib prison and the shame that this administration has brought upon our whole country. Thank Goodness there is someone out there like Ted Kennedy who is not afraid to speak the truth.
Lynn Kappelman
Mr. Jacoby's vilification of Ted Kennedy leaves me thinking that he himself is guilty of "seething." In grossly downplaying the torture scandal (abuse of "a few Iraqi prisoners by a few American troops"), Jacoby reveals the underpinnings of his view of the larger Iraqi conflict: military excess is regrettable, but heavy criticism of the government is unpatriotic because America's intervention is just. Whatever one's view of the war, however, smearing the government's critics as unpatriotic -- as crossing a line no true American should -- is dangerous. What would silencing Ted Kennedy, a liberal senator representing an equally liberal state, mean? Censorship of his constituents, many of whom indeed oppose this war. Jacoby's understanding of the Iraqi conflict as "the forces of evil" against "the forces of democracy and libearalism," while laughable, invokes countless precedents of what during wartime becomes our most tortured concept: patriotism.
Brendan Ahern
Andover
Mr Jacoby seems incapable of distinguishing fact from ideology, which is a common delusion at the White House as well. Before he takes such rabid
offense at Senator Kennedy's comment, let him answer this question: How many innocent Iraqis have died since US forces invaded the country? Good luck finding a straight answer.
If he wants to huff and puff about the lack of 'mainstream' media response to Kennedy's speech, let us all ask where the mainstream media was when
President Bush was confusing Saddam Hussein with Al-Qeada 18 months ago. And where was he?
Scott J. Cullen, M.D.
Somerville
I usually avoid reading Jeff Jacoby, because I know his dishonest drivel in defense of the reactionary right wing is just going to annoy me. I made an
exception today, because I wanted to find out what remark of Senator Kennedy had him so upset.
Jacoby quotes Kennedy as saying ''On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'
Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management.''
Jeff seemed upset that Kennedy had the nerve to compare us to Saddam. He demands to know why the liberal press is not condemning Senator Kennedy. Perhaps, Jeff, because Senator Kennedy has a valid point. Oh, it's true that the level of what our torturers did does not match the level of
Saddams, but Jeff uses this moment to say "equating the disgraceful mistreatment of a few Iraqi prisoners by a few American troops." Jeff is trying to say that his president and his secretary of defense knew nothing of these tortures. Well, they have managed to achieve Richard Nixon's "plausible deniability". But anyone who thinks that idea for this torture did not start farther up the chain of command than the poor "few American troops" that are now going to pay the price of the whitewash is a fool.
If Bush and Rumsfeld did not know about it, they should have and they should have taken steps to see that it did not happen. We are in this fix because this president does not know anything. He has his agenda and that puts blinders on him. Bush did not pay any attention to the information coming to him before 9/11 about the suspicious activity, and he did not pay any attention to the information coming to him for almost a year about torture in Iraq. I wonder what is happening to our Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
Don Ferguson
Senator Kennedy sure ruffled some feathers during his latest discourse in which he questioned the president's motives for going to war with Iraq and
compared the harassment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers with the torture chambers of Saddam on grounds that he was greatly disturbed about
the loss of human life and the devious squandering of taxpayer money to subsidize what he labeled a politically motivated invasion. Them are fighting words from the senior Senator, and even though I may concede some legitimacy to Mr. Kennedy's verdict, I am still not convinced whether his analysis is inspired by an acrimonious pre-disposition toward the president or by a sincere belief in his deepest moral convictions about the manner in which this war is being conducted. Still, I am sure it takes quite an effort for a self-proclaimed federally funded abortion advocate to credibly articulate a dual concern for both the loss of human life and the reckless misuse of taxpayer money.
Miguel Guanipa
Whitinsville
I've got news for you -- we've already failed in Iraq. Unless, of course, you define success as getting rid of Hussein. Then yes, we succeeded. But in the ensuing months, we have done very little for the Iraqi people. And Bush will never "reap the benefit of success" from this war. His approval rating is at an all-time low, and his closest advisors have lost the trust of much of the American people (Rumsfeld in particular). The most he can hope for now is to save a little face and not look like a complete and total failure as he pulls out of Iraq. And as for Kennedy's comments? They're painful because they're true. It's not propaganda, it's the sentiments of many of Kennedy's constituents -- myself included. Just because a politician disagrees with the policies of the current president does not make that person a "bitter Anti-American." In this case, it makes him someone who wants to see the ideals of our great country held up and lived by in even the hardest circumstances. And he has every right to call Bush out, because that is something our military, even if there were only a dozen individuals involved, did not do.
E. Phoebe Murray
Jeff Jacoby doesn't get it. Just like William Safire's article last week in The New York Times proclaiming disgust at the lack of reaction to the discovery within Iraq of traces of the poison gas Sarin, Jacoby's May 25th column demonstrates a common problem among supporters of the war: There are a lot of thinking people who are against it!
Jacoby insists that Kennedy is attacking President Bush and his policies simply in the name of election-year partisanship. He fails to consider that Kennedy's motive, much like in Southeast Asia, the Soviet Union, and Kuwait, may be a concern for troops and civilians of many nationalities whose lives are at stake. He fails to acknowledge that our misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq has strengthened those terrorist organizations that pose such a threat to free people everywhere. He fails to admit that what happened at Abu Ghraib was more than just "the disgraceful mistreatment of a few Iraqi prisoners by a few American troops." It was a concerted, consistent, and long-term effort to terrorize Iraqi citizens, and there has yet to appear any evidence that those servicepeople involved, both officers and enlisted, were doing anything but following orders.
When the bus driver is heading toward a cliff, loyalty and patriotism should not keep you from shouting a warning to your fellow passengers.
Brian Lutes
Brewster
In Jeff Jacoby's column, "Ted Kennedy's Anti-American Slander" (May 25, 2004), Jacoby questions Senator Kennedy's challenges to the disgraceful treatments in Iraq, but he is representing the grievances of the public. His words were not too strong, nor were they unpatriotic. The responsibility of a civilized superpower is that we uphold the good and we don't torture, rape and kill our foes. Kennedy is right to question the actions of our leaders and our army. The lack of reaction from the country is the realization that we, as a superpower, can abuse our strength, our reach and our privileges, making us no better than the people we pushed out.
Jacoby's comparison of Kennedy to an Al Qaeda operative is childish. The Senator has always stood for peace and rights for all human beings. He has worked hard to protect us from threats from outside and within. Kennedy is doing what he can to represent the larger body that still cannot get their voice uncensored by this administration and its power-happy friends. Jacoby shouldn't blame the public for being fed up with plan that clearly is not working.
Nathan Spencer
Boston
The May 25 op-ed by Jeff Jacoby is a perfect example of how impassioned dislike for a person or a political party, in his case, Senator Kennedy and the Democratic Party, can so easily disengage reason. It is Mr. Jacoby who should be embarrassed.
Historically, this country has reflected far higher principles than what are being defended for the abuse in Iraqi prisons. In fact, those same American principles fueled this administration’s defense for toppling Saddam Hussein. This is why, yes, good, decent, upstanding, respectful Americans are truly appalled that the military would stoop so low as to apparently encourage the abuse that too many are willing to overlook for some principle that escapes those of us who hold our country to higher standards.
To become like those we have so vehemently criticized doesn’t make us better than, merely the same as. Such abusive deeds debase the people we are and therefore how we are viewed. And at the moment that would be hypocrites. If Mr. Jacoby values that moniker, he is welcome to it.
Lois Klee
Praise the Lord! Jeff Jacoby and the other neo-cons have found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it is "anti-American" Ted Kennedy.
In his recent column, Jacoby accuses Kennedy of slander regarding the senator's comments about the prison scandal in Iraq. The dictionary (and
yes, Jeff, the AMERICAN HERITAGE one) defines slander as "oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation". So tell me, what is slanderous OR false about his comments? The American government is responsible for those soldiers' actions, and the rest of the world sees the
soldiers as agents of our government, as should we.
It must be nice to hide behind your 1st Amendment rights and just say what you want without backing it up. For instance, Kennedy did NOT oppose the
liberation (you meant war, right?) of Kuwait. He opposed how President Bush Sr. wanted to declare and go to war without even asking Congress and before any diplomatic steps were even taken. The same was true for Iraq. Any smart person, such as Senator Kennedy, knows that the Middle East is a very precarious and volatile place for America, and to be reactionary and unilateral in our actions only serve to further undermine our credibility and reputation ...certainly something that is NOT in the best interest of America. So you may not want to play the slander card...as it could turn around on you as libel.
It's time for Jacoby and the other neo-cons to stop hiding both their heads in the Iraqi sand and especially behind the "criticizing the President is un-American and un-patriotic" rhetoric. It is not only a right to challenge and criticize our leaders, but our duty as citizens. And to do it in "war time" only goes to show others (and remind ourselves) that our process for debate, open dialog, and democratic process cannot and should not be derailed. And you don't get to use this right and then decide someone else can't, no matter how strong their message. This, my friend, IS un-American.
Jamison MacLachlan
Anti-American? It's downright patriotic to question our government's actions; to criticize failing policies; to express our unique right in the world of truly free speech. That's what being American is all about: having and protecting the right to speak out for change and progress. It's not about seeking to squelch opposition or condemn someone's concern about personal liberties, especially by lobbing personal assaults and sticking your head in the sand during a controversial war. Mr. Jacoby, there's a reason the media didn't care about Ted Kennedy's "slander." It wasn't. It didn't even have substance, just criticism. Let's stop wasting good paper on whining and focus on some sound policy suggestions or courses of action.
Jason Schrieber
Somerville
It is difficult to understand why the Globe continues to employ Jeff Jacoby. If it is to counter the attacks of the right that the Globe is left leaning (all evidence to the contrary - it is generally quite balanced), you should employ a more educated and reasonable conservative. The NY Times manages to find conservative columnists who at least sound like they have read someone else's opinion. Jacoby consistently produces radical, ill-reasoned and ignorant sounding columns. Or is that the point? He's a joke and it is not really fair to the conservative point of view to have him as a representative.
I expected to see his picture frothing at the mouth after reading today's diatribe.
Jane Pioli
Please give Joe Jacoby a raise for his editorial today, May 25th, 2004. Ted Kennedy's disgracefull comments should be soundly condemned for the political trash they are.
Frank Hare
Jacoby can spare us the phony outrage over Sen. Kennedy's remarks. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is the natural result of a morally bankrupt war propagated by a morally bankrupt administration -- and more Americans are coming to recognize it every day, despite the best efforts of Jacoby and others to conflate blind acquiescence with patriotism.
First the administration and its apologists tried to blame a few soldiers for the abuse; now Jacoby is trying to shift attention to Sen. Kennedy, who, like many Americans, knows just how disastrous this abuse is for the U.S., and how imperative it is that we get to the root of its causes.
Unless Jacoby and his ilk have their way, the American public will soon learn that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated, were not the work of "a few bad apples", and, unfortunately, may even have been Bush administration policy.
And as they learn that, Americans will rightfully assume their role as final judge and jury of this administration's decisions and actions. Whether Jeff Jacoby likes it or not.
Facing unpleasant realities is the responsibility of the self-governed. Jacoby can huff and puff, but he can't change that. Americans must learn the truth -- and they owe a debt of gratitude to Sen. Kennedy for speaking it.
Michael Barry
Medford
Good Afternoon Jeff Jacoby,
I read your column this morning with great interest. Your selection of the term "slander" to describe Senator Kennedy's recent remarks led me to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Slander: n, a false report maliciously uttered and tending to injure the reputation of a person.
If I am to believe the stories recently published in the Globe and other newspapers, torture has been practiced in the Abu Graib prison by members of the U.S. military. The Globe recently published a story reporting on the conviction of a U.S. Army sergeant related to the abuse of prisoners under Army control. Should the Globe launch an investigation into the facts that lead to the conviction? The general commanding the Abu Ghraib prison has been suspended from her position. The general commanding all forces in Iraq has been removed.
Are you suggesting that the Pentagon has overreacted to the situation? Are you suggesting that Senator Kennedy's remarks are false, that torture did
not occur in Abu Ghraib?
Who is guilty of slander here, Senator Kennedy or Jeff Jacoby?
Has torture occured during US military control of Abu Graib? If torture has occured, then Senator Kennedy and the Globe are accurate in their description of what happened. If torture has not occured, perhaps you have had an extremely narrow focus in your column. You should have included the Globe, the New York Times and other papers in your column this morning.
John E. Dineen
Ashland
Kudos to Jeff Jacoby ( the only guy with guts at the Globe) for his brilliant editorial on Teddy`s latest rant. Ted continues to amaze us all with his ridiculous thoughts and ideas, yet, there`s no doubt that he`ll be re-elected with 80% of the vote in 2006. We get what we deserve in the state of Massachusetts.
Jim Melanson
Kingston
I expect the Globe could easily find a more effective representative of the American right wing than Mr. Jacoby. Readers of all political persuasions benefit from thought-provoking, intelligent analysis by persons who have political views that differ from their own. Strong writers and representatives of this tradition exist on the right (for instance, William Kristol on foreign policy, Allan Bloom on Education, or Bjorn Lomborg on the environment). Unfortunately, Mr. Jacoby rarely steps up to the plate. His most recent column concerning Ted Kennedy’s remarks on the Iraq prison scandal were par for the course. As usual, they were unconvincing, inflammatory, trite, and ultimately boring. Rather than writing in a way that engages intellectual questioning of the reader’s own viewpoints and/or a meaningful exchange of ideas, he merely reinforces the obvious and wide chasms that already exist in the American political landscape.
Stephen Bird
Dorchester
I was appalled to read Jeff Jacoby's diatribe against Senator Edward Kennedy (May 25), filled with such phrases as, "vile calumny", anti-American poison", etc, to describe the senator's expressions of outrage against prisoner abuse.
Mr Jacoby must surely know that objecting to abuse and an administration's incompetence does not constitute anti-Americanism. As a foreigner, I am outraged at what, despite Donald Rumsfeld's equivocation over the word, amounts to torture. If Senator Kennedy wasn't angry at the events which have tarnished his country's name, I'd be extremely disappointed. It is to his credit that he has spoken so strongly. He does it in defense of his country's ideals. He wants the United States to reclaim its standing in the world. I call that true patriotism.
Glen Armstrong
Prince Edward Island, Canada
Thank you for the link to Senator Kennedy's remarks, which in my view are simply truthful and thus cause me to look askance at anyone who thinks the truth is a "vile calumny." Fiddlesticks, Sir.
Andrea Whitmore
Kansas City
I am so sick and tired of reading Jeff Jacoby whine about criticism of the Bush administration’s failed policies. In Jacoby’s world, criticism of Bush is equivalent to anti-Americanism or worse. Now it’s Ted Kennedy’s speech denouncing the recently revealed atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prisons that cause the self-righteous Jacoby to scream “bitter anti-American propaganda.”
It is not anti-American to criticize your government. This is true whether you are a columnist for a newspaper, a student, a teacher, a postal worker, a homeless person, or even a United States senator. The day have to pause and worry about whether we are going to get in trouble for voicing our opinions about our government’s policies at home or abroad is the day this nation will really be in serious trouble. But I will guarantee you this: It won’t be long into the first Kerry administration when we will be reading Jeff Jacoby decrying Kerry’s policies with words and innuendoes that will make Senator Kennedy’s criticisms of the Bush administration seem complimentary in comparison.
Barry Brodsky
Swampscott
I've looked at the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison. I share Mr. Kennedy's views on the Abu Ghraib crimes and the subsequent public relations disaster. We went into Iraq promising to remove the torturers from power. We succeeded and then we proceed to torture the people ourselves. We even tortured people in the same prison in which they were tortured under Saddam. We were even stupid enough to take pictures of the torture and our stupidity continued when we allowed the pictures to leak out to the press. The damage we've done to the image of America doesn't seem reversible. What a horrible situation. You think that we can't "equate" Saddam's atrocious tortures to the much lesser tortures perpetrated by our American soldiers? While it is true that Saddam did many, many worse things to his own people (many unbelievably horrible things), he was not American. Our soldiers represent the American way to the Iraqi people and they are there as their rescuers.
There are supposed to be clear differences between Americans and animals like Saddam. One of those many, many differences is that Americans don't torture our prisoners. These differences are very, very important to me and (I would hope) to most other Americans. I can't imagine an America that accepts the fact that the difference between Saddam and George W. Bush is that Saddam's prison guards kill their prisoners on purpose and Bush's only kill them accidentally when we're trying to bruise or humiliate them. That is NOT my America. That is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. God would never bless an America like that.
I'm ashamed to be an American right now. Your simplistic, manipulative, and shameful column only makes me more ashamed. I wonder what sort of America you imagine when you call someone "un-American" for expressing his dismay -- his OPINION. I know that as an educated, well-informed man you cannot possible consider Kennedy's remarks "anti-American". You've read American history in school, and we were taught about freedom of speech and about American values. There is no logic in your position about Kennedy's remarks regarding American soldiers torturing prisoners.
John J. Fremer III
Brookline
After reading Jeff Jacoby's column "Ted Kennedy's anti- American slander", it's obvious he falls into the "more outraged by the outrage" category of opinion. The thrust of Senator Kennedy's statement, as I understood it, is that the rest of the world, which is already judging America for waging a war without international consensus, is not going to make a qualitative difference between the degree of torture under Saddam or under America. Torture is a horrifying phenomena which evokes strong reactions regardless of who committs the atrocities. As a member of Amnesty International, I am completely ashamed by the decisions and actions of those Americans responsible for this tragedy. The incredibly poor planning and leadership in post-Saddam Iraq will cripple American diplomatic relations for years to come. In a war against international terrorism, these relationships are more valuable than high-tech weaponry. We cannot gain back our lost credibility until we accept our mistakes and learn from them. I believe Senator Kennedy's point was that changes need to be made, and fast.
Matthew LaSpina
Boston
Mr. Jacoby is incensed. Senator Ted Kennedy remarked that Saddam's torture chambers were re-opened under new management. Mr. Jacoby says that this is anti-American slander. By every definition, slander is a false or malicious statement. Verifiably, this statement is not false, and the maliciousness
is debatable. Were Iraqis tortured there? Did any die from their "interrogation"? Were there any rapes? The answer seems to be yes to all.
And no, most prisoners were not terrorists. Per the Red Cross, as many as 90% were mistaken arrests. One can debate on whether being beaten to death is as bad as being fed into a wood chipper, but either way, dead is dead.
As for being anti-American, who said that everything an American does is right? Who put us on a pedestal and said, "Lo, here is a perfect being"? Mistakes were made, torture was condoned, and denying it will not change the facts. Mr. Kennedy was right on the numbers in his litany of problems we
now face in Iraq. Are we more hated in the world than ever before? Are our soldiers in more danger? Does this war make it more difficult to fight Al Qaeda? Yes, yes, and yes.
Pointing this out is not, as the right is so fond of saying, anti-American. Would Mr. Jacoby prefer the U.S. Congressional Cheerleaders with their Republican-brand rose-colored glasses?
Merry Bierd-Dobbins
Dallas, Ga.
In his column of 5/25/04, Jacoby suggests that Edward Kennedy is the monster in the unfolding of Abu Graihb and the torture that went on there, for equating American torture with Iraqi torture. That, somehow, he expects a torrent of condemnation on Kennedy for comparing the torture that went on under Hussein to the torture that went on under American auspices. Because, after all, American torture was nowhere near as bad as Hussein's torture, right?
Jacoby misses the point. Any torture by American forces instantly causes the loss of any moral high ground this administration might have claimed. The reason that the Bush administration gave for going to war turned out to be a phantom. The Weapons of Mass Destruction, so often touted by this administration, are nowhere to be found. So, faced with the realization that the justification for the war was not going to hold up to scrutiny, the administration pulled the "morality" card out of its sleeve and tried to justify the war by saying that we had unseated a vicious dictator who tortured prisoners, for gosh sakes! We had to get in there and get rid of that evil man because he was evil and we are good.
But now, American forces are the ones facing scrutiny for having conducted torture and the "morality card" has been trumped by the very people who used it to play that hand.
Now come the denials of responsibility. Now we hear Rumsfeld say that punishment will be meted out "at all levels" of the military hierarchy responsible for this outrage. Except - isn't HIS job a part of that hierarchy? And where is his punishment? Where does the buck stop in this administration?
What Jocoby doesn't see is that, as soon as it comes down to a question of whose torture was worse, we've already lost. And that isn't Ted Kennedy's fault for saying so.
Jim Fenter
Jamaica Plain
Jeff Jacoby seems desperate for something to be outraged about.
Ted Kennedy's statement, on the face of it, is not a statement about the United States or the military. It's a statement about the policies of the Bush administration. The full text supports this interpretation. The only implication for Americanism is that the policy itself is un-American.
Nor is Kennedy's statement slander - the statement is actually true. The crimes committed under U.S. management are in the same category as Saddam's (and in the same place). The degree is significantly different, of course - everyone understands that. But how much virtue can we claim because we only committed "misdemeanor" torture? The equivalence is that they are equally intolerable.
Jacoby's finding of moral bankruptcy is probably just projection. I only found one paragraph of his faulting the actual abuses, but he was merely sickened - not outraged. Jeff, the policies are the problem.
George Graham
Jeff Jacoby proposes in his May 25th editorial that Senator Kennedy's comments about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were "anti-American". However, my observation is that his comments were well aligned with one of the noblest attributes of our form of government -- the right to have an opinion of your own, and to express that opinion without fear of persecution, even if it were an unpopular one. The right for all opinions and ideas to circulate freely in our nation permits all of us to participate in a contest of ideas. Occasionally from this contest, truth emerges. Sometimes this truth is enough to make us change our minds about something that, at least initially, a majority of us though was a pretty good idea. There are numerous examples of this throughout our history. Senator Kennedy's ironic comment about the Iraqi prisons being "under new management" may have been anti-Bush, anti-war or anti-torture, but it was decidedly not anti-American.
Stephen C. Buckley
Winthrop
In his May 25th column Jeff Jacoby quoted Senator Kennedy: ''On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management.'' Jeff Jacoby wrote "Here was the most prominent liberal politician in America accusing his own government of the very savagery it said it had gone to war to uproot." Precisely. And unfortunately, very accurately, too. The war in Iraq is an utter and miserable failure. And it was a war of CHOICE, not of necessity. Lest you forget, no Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers. Iraq is a sideshow in the war on terrorism, and one that has made our nation immeasurably LESS safe, not more so. Bush and top level members of his staff have decided the Geneva conventions do not apply, and this led directly or indirectly to the abuses at
Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld approved extreme -- and illegal under Geneva -- techniques for Gitmo and Afghanistan. The same translated into Abu Ghraib. This feeling of being above the law was apparent in Bush's SOTU speech when he proudly stated "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."
Bush was basically BRAGGING that we have murdered suspected terrorists. What happened to the rule of LAW? "Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States." Tell me, are you that confident of our intelligence sources that you are willing to have them act as judge & jury? If so, I ask you to remember Army Captain James Yee - the man we accused of treason at Gitmo. So certain were the intelligence forces of their claim that he was incarcerated. Unfortunately, they were dead wrong. He was guilty of possessing porn and having an affair - not treason. Our intelligence says WMD are a "slam dunk" in Iraq. A year later, still no WMD.
Jacoby accuses Kennedy of slander against America. I disagree. It is about time people starting speaking out and demanding accountability from our leaders. Democracy should be about free discussion on issues, not about trying to silence those who express dissenting points of view.
Marianne Werz OBrien
Falls Church, Va.
Dear Jeff Jacoby--
Your article is a fine rhetorical exercise in moral outrage from start to finish. The only problem is that it's based on a false premise, since your contention at the outset that the situation at Abu Grhraib can be adequately described as "the disgraceful mistreatment of a few Iraqi prisoners by a few American troops" is entirely insupportable. We're talking about many more than a "few" prisoners being "mistreated"; it's now quite clear that this "mistreatment" has, in fact, included murder and rape; and it's also becoming increasingly evident that the responsibility for this treatment goes right to the top (hell, even a recent article in the Army Times takes this position!). Further, Ted Kennedy is absolutely right that this administration's actions are putting troops needlessly in harm's way, and the same could be said of U.S. civilians. The real "moral bankruptcy" here, it seems to me, is displayed by those like yourself who drape themselves in the flag and refuse either to acknowledge the extent of the problem or to place blame where it belongs (let's start with
Rumsfeld). I'm going to remind you of your ill-considered words one more time: "the disgraceful mistreatment of a few Iraqi prisoners by a few
American troops." Let's see just how well that characterization holds up in the coming months, as we learn more about what's been going on.
Steve Shoemaker
Mr. Jacoby calls Senator Kennedy's statement "bitter anti-American propaganda", but if we look at Jacoby's column, we will find the most notorious case of propaganda and reckless slender.
The column is full of ranting, like "disgusting remark", "recklessly denigrate", "terrible falsehood", "libel", but why it is not arguing with any points the senator made? What is the basis of the accusation that "he would rather see America fail in Iraq"? How is the forecasting of catastrophic consequences of possible US loss in Iraq related to Senator Kennedy?
If we read the senator's statement, there is not a single word about leaving Iraq or undermining US military efforts. He calls for investigation of disgraceful human rights abuses committed by US servicemen in Iraq. It is those soldiers and their failed leadership who deprived the United States of the moral justification for going to war, not Senator Kennedy, who tries hard to return America to high moral ground by aggressively addressing the problem.
Torture is a torture is a torture. We can compare murderer to another murderer and thief to another thief, even if one killed or stole more than another. The
difference is that Saddam condoned and ordered these tortures. American democracy should strive to not only blame low-level thugs in uniform, but also
to expose and punish all those who ordered or condoned such evil deeds. And Senator Kennedy works precisely for this.
The Senator spoke about facts. If enemies of the USA use the same facts, then the blame is on those who, by action or inaction, allowed this to become truth. And if a US loss in Iraq would be catastrophic -- and it is a distinct possibility -- then blame should not be on those who point to it, but on those whose ill-judgment and failed leadership led to such a regretful situation.
Eugene Zuser
JEFF JACOBY writes that Senator Kennedy is "anti-American'' ("Ted Kennedy's anti-American slander,'' Web exclusive, May 25) because he opposes a president who lied to us about our reasons for going to war, and whose secretary of defense tried to bottle up the scandal at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. What bunk!
Recall that it was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who attempted to get CBS News to hold off from running the story on "60 Minutes II'' for fear that it would damage morale. I'd say that's anti-American (squelching the free press).
Jacoby says that those were just a "few prisoners and a few soldiers.'' I'd say the conduct of those soldiers was anti-American.
Finally, I'd say that lying to the American people about the gravest of decisions (going to war) is anti-American. If Jacoby is looking for fingers to point, he should look squarely to President Bush, who presumably sets the tone for the administration and its conduct of the war in Iraq. If there is no accountability at the top, why should we expect accountability among our troops?
Senator Kennedy has a long history of standing up for American values -- equality, social justice, and a sane, multilateral foreign policy. President Bush's refusal to take any sort of responsibility for his failed policies, or to change course altogether now that his justification for the war, WMDs, has disappeared, is leading our nation to ruin. I'm grateful that we have patriots like Senator Kennedy who stand for truth and accountability, in direct opposition to President Bush and his administration.
Christopher J. Curtis
Montpelier, Vt.
AS THIS administration's star sinks further into the ignominy it deserves, it seems Jeff Jacoby's columns become increasingly shrill. He would call Ted Kennedy a traitor for speaking the truth about despicable acts carried out under this administration's "Operation Iraqi Freedom'' -- such a name being a slander if ever there was one.
To my mind, and the minds of an increasing number of Americans, the traitors in this country are those who lead us into imperialist wars, reward their corporate cronies, plunge us and the next several generations into debt to pursue their ill-founded, specious agenda, put our health and the environment at risk with relaxed pollution standards which benefit those companies friendly to the administration, routinely deceive the public, and diminish our international stature to the point where we are no longer the shining "city on the hill,'' but perceived by many in the world to be the biggest threat to global peace and stability.
Senator Kennedy has always had the courage to speak what he perceives to be wrong about this country simply because he loves this country so very much. Thankfully, his words will live on when those of others will be long forgotten.
J.G. HAYES
Stoneham
I appreciate that The Boston Globe presents viewpoints from the right so that its readers will receive a balanced perspective, but Jeff Jacoby appears to be imbalanced when he attacks Ted Kennedy's loyalty to our nation. As Americans, we need to live and act in a manner commensurate with the standards and ideals we promote. Anything less reveals us to be hypocrites. So, when a few bad troops mistreat Iraqi prisoners, and there is evidence that their orders may have come down from civilian leadership, it is appropriate for Ted Kennedy to express his frustration at the lowering of American standards. Who better than a national leader to express the frustration of so many Americans? I believe Senator Kennedy is voicing his support of American ideals. He knows that the actions some troops have taken in Iraq do not meet those ideals and this jeopardizes the safety of the majority of the troops and the United States as a whole. What is more American then using your right to free speech to demand better of our government? Maybe the reason that Mr. Jacoby has not heard a negative outcry regarding Senator Kennedy's remarks is because he is the one who out of touch with what it means to be American.
Andy Thompson
Natick
