Letters to the Editor
-
Taking a Charitable point of view
Lets take a step back and consider what was probably going through the heads of Pelosi and other "enablers". For the sake of charity, let us also assume (for argument's sake) that they were disgusted by the proposed interrogation methods but refrained from objecting.
This is what probably went through their heads:
1. "This 'waterboarding' is clearly a violation of the most basic human rights. I should say something..."
2. "Hold on a sec ... If I say something, what is the likely outcome?"
3. "If recent history is anything to go by, any objection on my part will be seized on by the Conservative press as a sign that I'm soft on the War on Terror! I can see the editorials now ... "Pelosi willing to Risk the Lives of your Children to Coddle Terrorists!! Liberal!! FRENCH!!"
4. "Can I trust the American public to see through those lies, and realise that torture is a step to far, and in any event produces dodgy intelligence? Hmmm ... probably not ..."
5. "No objection"
Here's the best case scenario - its not that the Democratic Party leadership secretly supports torture. Rather, it is politically too spineless to stand up to the Adminstration for fear of being painted "FRENCH".
But really, can u blame them? The truth is that the American public probably would have bought the smear campaign hook, line and sinker. A substantial proportion of the American public still believes there was a link between Saddam's Iraqi regime and Al Qaede. There was precious little public support in the mainstream press or the public at large to support Hans Blix and El Baradei's attempts to set the record straight. Everyone, myself included, were prepared to trust the general consensus that those WMDs were out there, in spite of the warnings from the IAEA to tread lightly.
Sure our politicians are spineless. But they are spineless because they know they can't trust us, John Q Public, to behave rationally and in moderation. They realised then what I have only just begun to realise now - that in today's culture of soundbites, attack ads, and lobbyists shamelessly distorting or quoting-out-of-context, there is no room for the politican who tries to act in moderation. Every act, word and deed must be scripted for mass consumption and with a view towards the polls and future elections. There is no room for acting in nuance, because the voting public responds to decisiveness and tough talk, not calibration and introspection.