Category: National

Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, one of the Abu Ghraib torturers who brought dishonor on his country and further inflamed Iraqi insurgents, didn’t get what he deserved after his guilty plea. But he got as much as a court-martial could dish out. A year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge.

Sivits disgraced himself and his country and further jeopardized the lives of American occupation troops.

And this just in.

In Sivits’ home town of Hyndman, Pa., his guilty plea and sentence prompted a candlelight vigil on his behalf that was attended by some 200 residents wearing yellow ribbons. Apparently that’s what irreparable damage to America prompts in that Pennsylvania burg.

What is it about appalling, disgusting, perverted, horrendous and “aiding and abetting the enemy” that the ostensibly good folks of Hyndman don’t understand?

Donald Rumsfeld, a decent man with years of distinguished service to this country, should now do the honorable thing. He should take one for Team America. He should fall on his sword.

Seemingly, it’s not about to happen, no matter what other perverted and humiliating incidents are unearthed from Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison. No matter how much collateral damage is caused by America’s PR Weapon of Mass Destruction. The Secretary of Defense, where all Pentagon chain-of-command links lead, only got a dressing down by the president. He subsequently received a vote of confidence from Bush for doing a “superb job.”

It’s Rumsfeld’s call because the president doesn’t want to be seen as scapegoating a trusted true-believer who won’t bad-mouth him in a memoir. Neither does the president want to be seen as wavering from the Administration’s stay-the-course, go-to-the-mattresses, Iraqi policy.

A Rumsfeld resignation is a cure-all for nothing, for this is a panacea-free zone. But it would symbolically complement and buttress the president’s public apology. Certainly more than a surprise visit to Baghdad did. And if a resignation would make life a little less hazardous for American G.I.’s and a little more hopeful for any American hostage, it’s worth it right there.

But there’s a more fundamental principle involved. Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib is a microcosm of the entire occupation in all its incoherent blunder. Nobody, to date, has answered for that. Somebody may in November, but that’s of no consequence now.

Everyone but the Bush Administration seemed to know that winning a war with the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world was never the issue. Winning the post-war peace and stability would be the real crucible. Nation building after infrastructure bombing seemed a Pentagonic afterthought.

Keep in mind that “liberation” is an abstraction in the absence of order. The early looters’ free-for-all presaged all that ultimately followed.

Not enough troops. Not enough training. Not enough speakers of Arabic. Not enough international help. Not nearly enough preparation across the board.

That’s what Rumsfeld would be answering for. His resignation would be an appropriately proportional response — shock, shame and contrition — for the harm done to those detainees and to this nation.

Hardly an exception within the ill-conceived, Pentagon-directed occupation were the prisons. Undermanned, unsupervised, poorly-trained, ad hoc prison guards — who were given license to interpret intentionally ambiguous orders to “soften up” detainees for interrogation — turned Abu Ghraib — and apparently others — into grotesque, inmate-abuse sideshows. The problems appear systemic.

No, it wasn’t Auschwitz, and it wasn’t Bataan. It wasn’t even Iraq under Saddam Hussein. And the sadist-soldiers didn’t decapitate anyone while declaring that “God is great.” Surely, Nicholas Berg would have settled for indignity.

But this debacle of mistreatment and pornography is an awful American nightmare when one of our avowed objectives is to win the minds and hearts of Iraqis and to send the right democratic signals to the rest of the Muslim world. It’s an unmitigated disaster when it further incites insurgents and international jihadists and undermines the security of American troops.

That’s still Rumsfeld’s purview. He’s not a fall guy — unless it’s on that sword. He’s the Pentagon’s point man. He’s accountable.

One other thing. If Nuremberg taught us anything, it’s that merely “following orders” won’t necessarily earn you a reprieve from the gallows. Behavior that devolves into depravity remains disgustingly abhorrent, morally reprehensible and most worthy of courts martial. As Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., bluntly put it: “I don’t know how the hell these people got into our Army.”

Any of “these people” who are found guilty will be seen to have followed base instincts more than wink-and-nod orders. They should consider themselves lucky if they don’t do time in an Iraqi slammer, awaiting their Kodak moments in their birthday suits.

And one more thing. Imagine how much worse this could be if Rumsfeld hadn’t been doing a “superb job”?

This one can’t be blamed on Rumsfeld.

No one this side of Tony Blair has been more steadfast in its support of America’s Iraqi policy than Poland and its President Aleksander Kwasniewski. Earlier this year President Bush even hailed Poland as the heart of the “new Europe.” Well, it may be a heart minus a few valves.

In Europe, Poland — which joins the European Union this month — is second only to the UK in visa applications to the U.S. However, it is not one of the many “old Europe” countries granted an exemption to the increasingly involved visa process. The fee (not refundable if application is turned down) is $100. Mind you, Poland is a country where the average monthly wage is about $400. The complaints are growing into a cacophonous chorus.

Then there are the Department of Homeland Security requirements for mandatory mug shots and finger printing. That was enough for the mayor of Warsaw to cancel his upcoming, cultural-exchange visit to the U.S.

DHS mandates certainly make sense for Muslim countries. But do we need to profile Poles? At the very least, when it comes to visas, couldn’t we treat Poland as good as our other European allies — such as Germany or France?

Just when we thought the Bush Administration’s panderfest to Cuban-Americans couldn’t get any more blatant or arrogant, we get the “recommendations” from the government-ordered Commission on Cuba. The 500-page report included a chapter on how to end the government of President Fidel Castro. The remaining chapters strongly suggested ways the U.S. can help a post-Castro government implement democracy.

You don’t have to be a Bush-basher or a blame-America-first leftist to find this beyond the pale. It’s as if Guatemala, Chile or Iran never happened. Uniquely tragic Cuban-American history notwithstanding, it’s not for the U.S. to say what kind of government Cuba should have. It is a sovereign state, like it or not, and entitled to determine its own destiny — even if under the despotic aegis of Fidel Castro.

Appropriately enough, the commission was headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is hardly unfamiliar with regime-change scenarios.

Among the incongruities — and ironies — of the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq is the seemingly untenable position of Secretary of State Colin Powell. It’s more than being a non neo-con.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1991, he cast a crucial no vote on adding to the grief of Baghdad by going in and ousting Saddam Hussein. President George Bush the Elder is still criticized in some quarters today for not having “finished the job” then and maybe obviating the need for what has been going on for the last year.

But it bears referencing what was behind Powell’s disinclination back then. He knew better than most that war wasn’t heck and that “finishing the job” would have meant more U.S. casualties from Iraqi resistance. Maybe a lot more. Moreover, Powell made it clear that “finishing the job” would have positioned the U.S. as the occupier of a foreign country, a Muslim one at that. It could have been a template for disaster.

Even if he didn’t envision a jihadist all-call, alienation of allies and inadequate planning, we now know why General Powell didn’t want to go into Baghdad back then. What we don’t know is how Secretary Powell sleeps at night these days.

Some things you say rarely –if at all — in a public forum, unless, of course, you don’t mind being labeled a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an ethno-centric Neanderthal, an anti-Allah alarmist, a generic bigot or a traitor to a cause. To even broach certain topics, you need to know which code words to use and avoid, what the euphemisms de jour are and how extensive a dragnet the PC police are casting.

I know you know what I mean.

So it was refreshing to see the stir that’s been created by Henry Louis Gates, the black chairman of Harvard’s African and African-American Studies program. Gates considers himself the antithesis of conservative, black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and he has big-time bona fides within the black community. He goes to the rhetorical mattresses to defend affirmative action.

What Gates did — both in his latest book “America Behind the Color Line: Dialogues With African Americans” and in subsequent speaking engagements — was to say what few black leaders — and no white leaders — can safely say.

He says he’s worried about the ironic upshot of the civil rights movement. He bemoans the legacy of a righteous cause that has descended into self-destructive behavior and “bling-bling” values. He is wondering out loud about a conspiratorial culture that seems to define education as “a white thing,” and showcases the notion that “authentic black identity is some kind of thug ghetto anti-education identity.”

What’s not to dislike?

In a recent address to the Aspen Institute in Washington, which was well chronicled by the Washington Post, Gates criticized the lack of in-house criticism coming from black leaders. To wit:

“Our leaders need the courage to stand up and say — behind closed doors and in public — that we have internalized our own oppression, that we are engaging in forms of behavior that are destroying our people. Too many of our leaders won’t stand up because they are afraid of being appropriated by the right, or afraid they are going to sound like Clarence.”

Actually, another irony is that more black folks might also want to listen to Clarence. Maybe then “equal opportunity” wouldn’t be synonymous with “equal results,” and the debate could be permanently elevated from entitlement to achievement. And the Thomases, Colin Powells and Condoleezza Rices wouldn’t be so routinely portrayed as less authentic black voices than those of 50 Cent, Ludacris and Allen Iverson.

But at least Gates has used his considerable public forum to put the focus where it belongs. On self-criticism within the black community. He also urges those blacks who have “made it,” to do more heavy lifting in helping their brothers and sisters.

No one, it has been said, can be made to feel inferior without his own cooperation. It didn’t take government mandates in the 1960s to change the South’s Jim Crow laws. It took an awareness by the indigenous black population that the back of the bus and “colored” bathrooms were inherently wrong, and they weren’t going to take it any more. That forced the government’s hand into doing the right thing.

The same principle is in play now. No one can be made to wear opportunity blinders without their own consent. The path to an unsubsidized life is basic: finish school, defer procreation, get an entry-level job, build a track record.

Anyone who has ever taught in the public schools can tell you that the biggest educational disparity over race has to do with parental involvement and peer pressure. With more than two out of three black children born to unmarried — often teenaged — mothers, an inordinate number of black parents are unprepared for the task at hand. The cycle, tragically, is too routinely perpetuated.

Moreover, the pervasive “bling-bling” values, victimhood mantra and hip-hop misogyny help foment a counterproductive peer pressure. That means serious disincentives for students to use standard English, earn good grades and conceal their boxer shorts.

To use, alas, a sports analogy, consider Derek Brooks and Warren Sapp. Black kids need many more of the former and no more of the latter. They also need more Clarences and fewer Snoops.

The train-bomb carnage in Madrid has ratcheted the terrorism stakes even higher — yet again. Apparently the horrific deed that killed 200 and maimed a thousand was enough to galvanize the Spanish electorate into voting out the center right Popular Party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a staunch American ally against terrorism. Socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatera had promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq in the absence of a United Nations’ mandate.

There’s little doubt that Zapatera will do precisely that, but the loss of 1,300 Spanish troops is hardly the issue. It’s all about blackmail.

How ironic that in a hierarchy of blame for mass murder, the Madrid murderers were found less culpable than the Ibero-American alliance against them. The Spanish election results which, in effect, rewarded a grisly, terrorist strategy, had to have resounded with other U.S. allies, such as Great Britain, Italy, Poland, The Netherlands and Australia. In knee-jerk fashion, European Commission President Romano Prodi has inexplicably declared that “It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists.”

Neville Chamberlain would have been proud.

Presumably, the divide-and-be-conquered message was meant for the U.S. as well. The best response, however, can be delivered by Sen. John F. Kerry — not President George W. Bush.

The president, for all his international — and domestic — detractors, is a known quantity. He’s on the hunt for the duration.

But Kerry is the international wild card. How much campaign rhetoric would actually translate into meaningful policy differences? For example, the U.N. arguably would be consulted more frequently by a Kerry Administration, but would it really matter what Syria, Cameroon or any other member of the Security Council thought when it came to the U.S. defending itself in a perilous, terror-infested world? We’re the ones with the big target as well as the big arsenal.

Kerry needs to set the record straight. To wit:

“Evil incarnate Islamic extremists don’t have any proxy votes in America’s presidential election. Not one. And while President Bush and I have serious differences over the occupation of Iraq and America’s global standing, there is agreement on a fundamental principle. The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we remain at war with the perpetrators — al-Qaeda in its myriad nationalities and nefarious tentacles. The next president of the United States will remain committed to its liquidation by pro-actively working with our allies around the world.

“As Madrid has shown, the malevolent will sometimes ‘win’ a cowardly battle against the unarmed and innocent, but they cannot win a war; certainly not this one. We will not permit it. Neither President Bush nor President Kerry. We both know the legacy of Munich.

“Moreover, I’m announcing that former NATO Commander-in-Chief Wesley Clark as my vice presidential running mate. He also has his differences with the president — but they do NOT include rooting out terrorism and defending this country against its declared enemies. Of course, putting a former general on the ticket is a symbol — a damn serious one.”

The good news for the John Kerry campaign was how well last week’s rally at Centro Ybor came off. Long, orderly lines snaked down 7th Avenue, around 17th Street and back down 8th Avenue to the security check-in. The Centro Ybor plaza was packed, demographically young and properly animated. So what if many of the faithful didn’t catch the symbolism of “I’m a Believer” by the Monkees blaring in the background. It all looked good on TV, especially that inclusive palette of diverse faces that served as the requisite backdrop prop.

Amid the sea of signage — “Real Deal,” “Bring It On,” “Beat Bush,” “Florida Loves Teresa” and “Weapon of Mass Disinformation” — was a notable number of placards in Spanish, including “Adelante con Kerry” and “Viva El Partido Democrata Siempre.”

After the audience warm-ups by Rep. Jim Davis, Rep. Kendrick Meek and Sen. Bill Nelson, Kerry made it clear that this was no cameo. He spoke, often interactively, for about 45 minutes. He then lingered another 25 minutes working a barricade line all the way into Fresh Mouth for a strawberry milkshake.

In between, he took no rhetorical prisoners. He’s obviously running as the anti-Dukakis. Coming through a primary process where the only significant bashing was of the president, Kerry has by now plenty of well-honed, partisan-pleasing, red-meat lines — including the familiar refrains of “Bring it on” and “Mission accomplished” parody.

His boilerplate stump speech routinely references:

*”Playing dress-up on an aircraft carrier.”

*”A ‘bait-and-switch’ war.”

*”Only go to war because we HAVE to, not because we WANT to.”

*”The one person in America who deserves to be laid off is George W. Bush.”

*”Protect Social Security, not privatize it.”

*”Benedict Arnold CEO’s.”

*”Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”

*”An attorney general who is NOT John Ashcroft.”

And more.

The bad news is that this is only March. The presidential thrust-parry-and-deride show will be playing as a continuous loop for another eight months.

Kerry, in response to a media question, didn’t exactly roll out the “Real Deal” rhetoric about Cuba. In fact, he sounded like a candidate who didn’t want to write off the exile vote.

He is, of course, very much in favor of democratic institutions on the island. And he thinks it’s a swell idea to examine America’s relationship with Cuba.

As to the embargo, he would NOT recommend ending it “willy nilly.”

It had nothing to do with the John Kerry rally at Centro Ybor, but one of the better lines of the night was delivered by a guy holding one of those Spanish signs. He was from Caracas, Venezuela, where uncertainties and fears abound about leftist President Hugo Chavez, who’s quite chummy with Fidel Castro.

“In Venezuela, Chavez is known as the ‘First Lady of Cuba,'” he said.