Friday, August 06, 2004

Bryan breaks out his creative imagination to put forth aconsider this political scenario:

Imagine if thirty years from now, a candidate for US President named Jeremy Sivits somehow gathers a groundswell of support for the upcoming election, largely on an anti-war platform. Woven throughout Candidate Sivits’ campaign is the historical fact of his complicity, thirty or so years earlier, in a little messy problem called Abu Ghraib. He acknowledged then that he was involved in the degradation of prisoners of war, but claims that he’s a better candidate today because of it.

Logically, all of us reading this scenario would say definitively, this man would not be fit for the office of President, even thirty years from now.

Why then, is the Democratic Party, as well as seemingly a few million more otherwise unafilliated citizens willing and eager to offer their endorsement to a self-confessed war criminal?

I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search - and - destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

OK, sir, will do. Judging you from your own record, I find that you’re not the man I want to be the next Commander-in-Chief. And so, I will be casting my vote for the reelection of President Bush.