One of the uglier pictures to come out of the "War on Terror" has been the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In an Op-Ed piece in todays LA Times, Robert Scheer paints a particularly scary scenario of the realities surrounding "Gitmo".
Because the LA Times requires membership to view some of its content, I am reprinting the essay here, instead of merely providing a link (Linkmeister, if you know of a way around this, please enlighten us all).
Yes, Robert Scheer is very much a "liberal anti-Bush" individual. But I want to stipulate that this is NOT a Red vs. Blue or anti-Bush posting, my purpose here is to stir the pot and get some dialogue going on this subject as it does affect each and every one of us in one way or another. I would, in this instance, welcome anyone who can provide a counter-point perspective that is factual and devoid of the typical partisan rhetoric.
Here now is the article copied from the LA Times.
------------------------------
A Devil's Island for Our Times
How can we let this evil persist?
by Robert Scheer
It is time to invade Cuba and put an end to what has become another Devil's Island in the annals of government-sanctioned torture. The barbaric treatment of political prisoners on the island is made no more palatable by being conducted in the name of an ideology that claims to be liberating the world from its shackles.
Once again, we are witnesses to the ugly truth bound up in that philosophical contradiction that the ends can justify the means: Desecrations of the human body and spirit can never be righteously justified by high-minded appeals to the needs of the masses. Fortunately, a few brave U.S. intelligence agents have managed to penetrate the security of a morally repugnant Cuban gulag and documented both the barbaric acts occurring on the island and their state-sanctioned rationalizations.
"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water," wrote an FBI agent who gained access to the prison compound. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more."
Also reported by U.S. agents: freezing or very hot cells; feverish prisoners left untreated; loud music and strobe lights directed for long periods at prisoners in solitary confinement; growling dogs used to frighten prisoners.
The prisoners themselves have testified to even worse tortures, their stories smuggled out by lawyers after they had been held incommunicado for years. Beatings that ended in injury and even death. Forced sex acts, often videotaped for use as blackmail. Coerced confessions. Injections of unknown drugs. The prisoners' claims were so outrageous that many of their attorneys did not believe the stories until U.S. government documents corroborated key aspects.
"Now there is no question that these guys have been tortured," said Brent Mickum, a Washington attorney for one of the roughly 10% of detainees at the camp who have finally secured legal representation. "Every allegation that I've heard has now come to pass and been confirmed by the government's own papers."
Even more troubling is that the FBI agents make it clear this is not the work of a few poorly supervised sadists. Their reports refer to what they described as a new — and very much secret — executive order on prisoner treatment by the president at the top of the camp's chain of command, which allowed for severe interrogation tactics, including "sleep deprivation and stress positions" combined with "loud music, interrogators yelling at subjects and prisoners with hoods on their heads."
So, shouldn't such leaders who authorize state torture be on trial for war crimes? Ah, but the torturers always tell us, such high-minded thinking does not square with real-world exigencies. The "people" must be protected at all costs! Never mind that the inevitable revelations of such outrages cost immeasurable goodwill around the world in what amounts to a global war for hearts and minds. Short-term pain for long-term gain is always the name of the game. But in this case, there is not even that justification — not a single detainee has been proved in a court of law to be a terrorist.
This Kafkaesque gulag, like others in human history, is an expression of a governing doctrine that defines morality as simply an expression of power: Might makes right. What the system can get away with, it does, unless reined in by the people it claims to represent. The ideology invoked in defense of the indefensible does not matter, for it has by that time been reduced to noble-sounding yet ultimately empty slogans, which clumsily paper over a steady erosion of the sanctity of individual rights.
This is what we can see so clearly at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, if only we have the stomach to bear witness. Yes, all of the above is a description of "Gitmo," the colonial-style U.S. prison camp run by American soldiers and paid for with American dollars.
The president who apparently authorized a global reign of prisoner torture in the "war on terror" is our own elected leader, not a convenient caricature of a foreign dictator. The military and legal systems that have looked the other way are our own.
Unfortunately, we look more and more like our enemies every day. On an island invaded, sabotaged and barred from U.S. trade and even tourism in the name of spreading our version of democracy, we have erected a massive torture chamber any deranged dictator would envy.
-----------
This is the link: Its too long to fit otherwise:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer28dec28,1,248631.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 8:50:06 AM
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 8:50:22 AM
... There is something wrong with putting somebody away until the "war on terror" is over. If these people are to be sentenced to detention, there is a way to go about this that does not step on the concept of proof and a fair trial.
Devil's Island is an appropriate metaphor.
I think Robert Scheer and those who agree with him should check out some of the beheadings our adversaries perform and proudly videotape instead of chaining prisoners up and letting them piss and shit their pants (if that is even true)!
Or the daily car bombings in Iraq, meant not to kill Americans, but to kill and maim, Iraqis performed by the brethren of these "poor" interred pieces of human filth held "very much alive" in Gitmo.
Furthermore, the word of a possibly "make believe" unnamed FBI agent and a Washington DC lawyer who has an obvious axe to grind are meaningless. Just more Scheer attempting to denounce his Country, which he has based his pathetic career on.
With the sheer quantity of people coming and going from Gitmo, Scheer comes up with one attorney and an unnamed FBI agent to back up his contrived story... propaganda. It is not only anti-Bush, it is anti-America, per fucking usual!
It's no fucking wonder the Los Angeles Times has the fastest declining circulation of any major newspaper in the USA.
has proven that facts are not much of an issue in their reporting!
I give Scheer as much credence as any other wacko with a keyboard and a willing, leftist publisher, that would be none.
Like I said, with all the thousands of people who have come and gone from Gitmo since this War on Terrorism started, I find the total lack of confirmation quite important. Obviously, Scheer and possibly you don't share the importance of that critical absence of facts in reporting of "torture"!
I have personally known some guys who did indeed suffer "torture" at the hands of the communist North Vietnamese, and pissing their pants or shitting their pants would be described by them as a fucking holiday!
And yes, I do consider Robert Scheer a liar.
I have a question though, why is it that you felt compelled to say "this is NOT a Red vs. Blue or anti-Bush posting" when in truth, it surely is? And why is it that you post under an alias on a anonymous board, could it be that your regular moniker or other aliases would give that fact away?
Part 1
"I have a question though, why is it that you felt compelled to say "this is NOT a Red vs. Blue or anti-Bush posting" when in truth, it surely is?"
Because my point of the post had nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the rightness and wrongness of the treatment of prisoners by the United States military.
Snowman39 in his comments stated "The only thing limiting what we do with these detainees is our own sense of right and wrong. Should we be cutting off fingers or electricuting them, NO. But if you want to bitch about them being humiliated because they were in their underwear or doing "stupid human tricks", you're wasting your time."
In both of your comments, I get the sense that "two wrongs make a right" (never noticed that pun before... lol) or perhaps the end justifies the means.
I happen to disagree with that simply because I DO believe we should be held to a higher standard of Ethics. With a Capital E.
Otherwise, the terrorists have already won the biggest battle. They will have made us just like them.
--------------------------
Part 2
"And why is it that you post under an alias on a anonymous board, could it be that your regular moniker or other aliases would give that fact away?"
I could answer this, but it would reveal the Myster E. (grin)
Shouldn't be that hard to figure out though, I'm told my writing style is pretty distinctive. Happy New Year, bribite.
That you seem to consider sawing off a captives head on video tape and leaving prisoners in chains to shit their pants equal crimes, I have to say that I questions your ethics with or without the capital E.
I have a pretty good idea of who you are and your many alter egos, and again it's my opinion that you meant it to stir up the shit against the President.
Have a great New Year, I know I will, but I will take mine without the whine.
You apparently have missed my entire point, bribite. Mores the pity.
I am not comparing public decapitation with forcing a man to wallow in his feces. Don't be so silly, bribite, even Ann Coulter knows better than that.
The Geneva Convention is not the issue.
The tit for tat "they do this but we only do that" is a game best left on the playground of primordial dysfunction.
The fact THEY publicly behead innocent victims in the name of their terrorist goals does not justify AMERICA lowering itself to the level of its enemies by abusing prisoners TO ANY DEGREE!
Admittedly, only a naive fool would believe this hasn't been going on throughout civilized history in one fashion or another since Day 1. It doesn't make it right, nor does it justify our activities.
I can accept "We know this is wrong, but we do not have a choice in the matter, it is a part of War." This is exactly what some of the "Redfolk" here state. That it is a part of war, inexcusable, but unavoidable. At least thats honest. If the government came out and admitted to its citizens that we have done wrong things in the name of the greater good, then at least we are acknowledging our flaws, and can find ways to eliminate it in the future.
(Although, lets face it, with as major a role as the drug industry plays in todays politics,surely they have very VERY sophisticated chemicals that can easily get information without the use of physical torture? So why don't they? Because its against the Law? Or to balance the pork between the pharmaceutical-medical complex and the military-industrial complex?)
As a man with a conscience, I can not, WILL NOT accept "We do it because they do worse to our people". That's simply the wrong message that just festers as it breeds deeper hatreds.
You are mistaken if you say I posted this with the intent of bashing the Resident. If I want to trash George II, I can do it quite easily and directly, without couching it in some obfuscating misdirective. Deception is the purview of Karl Rove and the GOP, and the calling card of the dishonest.
And bribite, for our New Years Party, I'll bring the Whine. You've already provided the Cheese.
Oh btw - if you know who I am... send a PM to my main. I'll play if you will!
Bribite,
Are you saying that indeed if torture did take place in relatively larger scale than a few bad apple, is this ok, because some other people did those beheadings?
Although you do know that even based on Pentagon reports, rape and murder did take place. One of the cases of murder was beating an Iraqi general to death, and rape of an underaged boy.
And as a follow up, is beheading of innocent people bad, but shooting them or beating them to death acceptable?
Just want to understand how my fellow countrymen think.
As to your first "oddly worded" question, my attempt was to demonstrate the difference between "torture" and letting someone shit and piss their pants! If you consider both torture, then at least grant me that "torture" in your mind has degrees.
As to your second question, can you provide some evidence? Admittedly, I am not a student of your alleged "Pentagon reports", but please enlighten me.
Your third asinine question does not deserve a response. And by the way QA, when did you stop beating your wife?
I did not refer to defecations in the pants, etc, as particularly a torturous function.
Go read General Taguba’s report, and related news. There have been beatings leading to death, and rape. Of course, from where you come from, these are normal things.
We don't consider these things normal, that is why we are the greatest country on earth.
-- Modified on 12/30/2004 12:02:46 AM
You conveniently left off the part about those who perpetrated such crimes against the prisoners have been or are in the process of being punished.
You attempt to make it the policy of our Military, not the anathema that it is, is pathetic. Your knee jerk, emotional blame America first attitude, that is shared by the leadership of the democratic party is why you and your ideological buddies lose ground election after election.
I find your comments; "that is why we are the greatest country on earth." quite hollow, based on the majority of your posts, your allegiance seems to lay with the UN and EU, certainly not the best interest of the United States of America!
NOTE TO THE MEAL TICKET!:
If you feel this is a personal attack, and feel compelled to delete much of my post or all of it, please at least be fair enough to read the post I am responding to. Especially the line that reads:
"There have been beatings leading to death, and rape. Of course, from where you come from, these are normal things."
I also didn't know Mr. Meal Ticket actually does block/censor some of the comments. I always thought we were all a bunch of friendly folks!
Spirited debates, especially with you, is part of the fun of this board! I don't get to respond/read this board often, otherwise, I would have tried to be a little abnoxious!
We don't agree on most things, but so what? It is always fun when I am not travelling, finally log in late at night in California, and see the raw emotions from all sides.
made by prisoners to their lawyers have NOT been found to have merit, and the actual rather minor wrong-doing is lost in the din of those outrageous allegations.
The idiocy and ignorance of the article's author is best revealed by his statement that "we have erected a massive torture chamber any deranged dictator would envy." That is, of course, nonsense to anyone familiar with the legacy of various Communist dictatorships (I recall particularly stories out of Hungary after the uprising), the gulags, and Nazi Germany.
Comparing even the worst of the allegations about Guantanamo to those historical precedents is outrageous. On the other hand, when you consider the left-wing source of the comment, you remember that the far Left has a long, hoary history of ignoring Communist atrocities and of moral equivalence.
Although I agree with his article, I must admit I too am troubled by his comparison. Certainly no prisoner at Guantanamo is being burned, gassed, or vivisected.
But the fact still remains, especially after the acknowledged widespread abuses of Abu Ghraib, if we as American citizens are to maintain the high moral ground and not become the same as our enemies, we MUST hold our military and our government, as well as ourselves, to a higher standard.
In his comments, bribite says "I think Robert Scheer and those who agree with him should check out some of the beheadings our adversaries perform and proudly videotape instead of chaining prisoners up and letting them piss and shit their pants (if that is even true)!"
This sounds like bribite is saying that two wrongs make a right.
"IF that is even true" is simply not a good enough response if we are to maintain the high ground. Two wrongs do not make a right, they just make things twice as wrong.
I don't care who is ultimately held responsible. For me the primary concern should be, and must be to determine if these allegations have any substance and merit. Let the chips fall where they may, but if an American military prison camp is under any suspicion of violations of the Geneva Convention, then it is our DUTY and OBLIGATION to confirm and validate the integrity of our country.
Abu Ghraib has cast a dark pall of suspicion on our country in the eyes of the world. By casting aspersions at any possibility of wrongdoing at Gitmo, the appearance of deception becomes all the more prevalent.
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 4:37:25 PM
these detainees are not members of a foreign military involved in a war and are therefore not covered by the Geneva convention. In all fairness, the Geneva convention states that foreign combatants not in proper uniform can be considered as spies and shot on site.
A side note: Everyone is probably familiar with the film of the vietnamese guy being shot in the head execution style during the Vietnam war right after the Tet offensive. As brutal as that seems (and yes it looks brutal to me too), he was actually shot within the rights of the Geneva convention (he was a North Vietnamese spy caught right after the Tet offensive in Saigon)
Also, they are not US citizens and are therefore not afforded the rights offered by the Constitution (BTW, our folks in uniform surrender some of those rights when they enlist)
Bottom Line: The only thing limiting what we do with these detainees is our own sense of right and wrong. Should we be cutting off fingers or electricuting them, NO. But if you want to bitch about them being humiliated because they were in their underwear or doing "stupid human tricks", you're wasting your time.
Actually, I hope the left does keep on this rant, all the easier for the republicans in '08 as the left continues to show that "THEY JUST DON'T GET IT"! 
One of the central issues here, which I hope you recognize and do your best to "get it" is most of these people may very well have been innocent.
Even if you do have a sense of values that condones torture and acts of brutality, unless you are a crazy sadist, you don't want innocent people to suffer from torture, do you?
The problem is actually some of the prisoners in gitmo, after long term imprisonment, have been sent back to wherever they came from.
Do you feel it is ok to imprison and torture all Arabs?
Don't be shy, tell the truth.
I am not sure your interpretaion of Geneva Convention is totally accurate either.
You posted based on Geneva Convention, spies can be shot on site. Here is from P1/A5.
==
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.
==
Let's know where you got your information from. I know you are not a lier and didn't make this up.
Article 68 states:
"The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. "
And Article 5 states:
"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. "
Imposing death penalty is not "shoot on site", read the rest of the paragraph.
Also, "having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention" is NOT on site execution! It only means they are not allowed to relay information.
I am glad you have confirmed Snowman lied, was misinformed, victim of the nutcase propaganda, etc. take your pick.
"Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage"
Who determines the guilt or innocence? The capturing party. Nowhere does the Geneva convention state what procedures exactly must be taken, only that the person must be found guilty of espionage, and since it is up to the capturing army/country to decide this process, it can be anything from a full trial to a local commander saying, GUILTY, shoot him in the head.
COME ON, you post here all the time, can't you do better than this!!
If you can show in the Genva convention where the exact procedures are for handling spies, then show it, otherwise this would be CHECK and MATE
See the following, the process of trial is fairly well defined, and it does not permit execution on site.
In no where, shooting a prisoner in the head, without due process, is sanctioned ... not according to Geneva Convention, or International Law.
"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be."
Why do you think it says "in case of trial", because there may not be one. If the capturing party decides a trial is warranted, this says that it should be a fair trial. THIS DOES NOT DEMAND a trial.
One other point that shows how wrong you are. After the Vietnam war, General Nguyen Ngoc Loan moved to the United States and lived here the remainder of his life. Never arrested or prosecuted for the shooting in Vietnam. Why do you suppose this is so if he violated the Geneva convention as you argue here and killed a man in cold blood because he did not abide by the Geneva convention?? Gee, maybe because he WAS within his rights under the Geneva convention.
The attached link is the obituary for renown photographer, Eddie Adams who took the photo on Feb. 1, 1968, the second day of the TET Offensive. Adams said in his own words that Lt. Col. Nguyen Ngoc Loan was indeed a hero and the photograph was unfair and did not tell the whole story! (see excerpt below) On a personal note, I arrived in Vietnam on Feb. 3, 1968. On Feb. 16, 1968, while on leave in Saigon, I was down the street from a cafe where GI's gathered looking for nookie. Right after 2:00 PM a little boy walked into that cafe with two live, pin-less hand grenades, killing 3 (including the boy) and wounding 17 others. The Vietcong man who pulled the pins and sent that boy to death was caught and executed in the street. Rightfully, in my opinion, and yes I would have pulled the trigger myself!
"In later years, Adams found himself so defined -- and haunted -- by the picture that he would not display it at his studio. He also felt it unfairly maligned Loan, who lived in Virginia after the war and died in 1998.
"The guy was a hero," Adams said, recalling Loan’s explanation that the man he executed was a Viet Cong captain responsible for murdering the family of Loan’s closest aide a few hours earlier.
"Sometimes a picture can be misleading because it does not tell the whole story," Adams said in an interview for a 1972 AP photo book. "I don’t say what he did was right, but he was fighting a war and he was up against some pretty bad people."
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 4:44:26 PM
You asked a question about the Geneva convention so I went to the source and did a search for the terms "espionage" and "spy" on the webpage for the Geneva convention.
I do not have the military nor legal background to pass judgement on the aspects of the convention.
Don't even TRY to put words in my post.
... people weren't tortured on Devils Island. The conditions were harsh, very harsh. However, the horror of the place was that they were dumped there, without a real trial or any chance to appeal and there was no process they could ever go through to leave.
We can argue to doomsday about what does or does not happen to people being held there and we can debate about whether our treatment is justified given arab attacks on our troops. None of that matters.
We have people there who were detained on the basis of a battlefield decision that was never subject to later review. They were questioned for tactical information and, at this point, know nothing of the situation on the ground. There is no real appeal. They are in limbo.
This is what needs to be fixed.
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 4:51:50 AM
and I can't say that Harry doesn't make a good point. And I can agree that there needs to be some oversight (though I don't believe that any are "innocent," as someone asserted). However, it should be something between military decisionmaking and the full protections of the federal courts under the Constitution. These people are not like Johnny Pimp or Joe Drugpusher, or even Michael Corleone. Most are dedicated to the destruction of the United States as an entity. They are not within our constitutional social compact.
Perhaps Ann Coulter was right. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders/dictators, and convert 'em to Christianity.
With all the sound and fury in response to that comment, it is forgotten that the converse is nothing less than the Islamicists intend for us.
...inside our system and I am sure we can do it again.
Without discounting the danger, lets be careful not to thow out the baby with the bathwater.
As to Ann C's solution -- it didn't work during the crusades. Have we refined our technique so it's going to work this time? Perhaps if she went over and bitch slapped them whenever they said something that was anti-american??? Perhaps a BJ to each convert???
I might even take up religion myself as long as she was full GFE.
Harry
But why you would want to be the sacrifice to a black widow like her is beyond me.
There is nothing in our Governmental framework that gives any
favorite treatment to Christianity of any stripe. To the extent that any religious view was the preferred one of our Founding Fathers, it was Deism, to which leaned Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison, among others.
How is Guantanamo significantly different from POW camps?
... POWs are released at the end of the war. There is no end to the war on terrorism.
you have essentially missed my point.
Are these prisoners criminals or war prisoners?
The article cited was obviously written by someone who is anti-administration, and it was loaded with language clearly designed to provoke emotional reaction first and critical thinking a distant second.
Devils Island was a prison for criminals, something akin to NYC in the movie Escape From New York. I seriously doubt that the majority of detainees at "Gitmo" will be there indefinately (as has been born out with the recent releases). BTW-what about the allegations made by some that some released detainees are being re-captured? If true, I would submit that releases need to be more carefully scrutinized.
I would agree that the administrtation seems to be taking a long time in acting, but then again, NONE of us on this board are privy to the behind the scenes happenings in Washington.
It seems that most of the posts on this board originate with "news" articles that are presented by biased sources (both liberal and conservative), to use the O'Rielly term, "spun"! And any competent researcher will remind you that the internet is not the ideal source for credible material, since any loon cna create a website.
... I hope I did not miss your point. In your reply, you echo the basis for my concerns.
You say: "Are these prisoners criminals or war prisoners? " You also note "I would agree that the administrtation seems to be taking a long time in acting, but then again, NONE of us on this board are privy to the behind the scenes happenings in Washington. ".
The prisoners are not a class -- they are individuals. They deserve individual treatment. A process should be in place for deciding how these individuals should be handled. The process should be public and open to comment. The nature of the process should be public even if the individual trials (or whatever) are not. Neutral observers should be there to insure that the process is being followed. People should have a right to advocates -- lawyers.
I think we should be willing give these people access to a process for handling their cases in the same way we give these rights to any people we consider enemies of a civil society.
Harry
-- Modified on 12/30/2004 5:35:43 AM
It is because of this that we ARE the greatest force for good on this planet.
And Yes, Scheer is an asshhole. Who else could make this leap???
""executive order on prisoner treatment by the president at the top of the camp's chain of command, which allowed for severe interrogation tactics, including "sleep deprivation and stress positions" combined with "loud music, interrogators yelling at subjects and prisoners with hoods on their heads."
So, shouldn't such leaders who authorize state torture be on trial for war crimes?""""
Sleep deprivation and loud music are not war crimes. Otherwise our children would all be in the brig today.
BK
Well said, Bill. It is indeed partly because of the fact that we do not tolerate this that we are the greatest force for good on the planet.
The Greatest Force For Good on the Planet.
Those are high sounding words, my friend.
Lets hope that in 2005, that does indeed prove to be the case.
Greatest force for good in the world?
About 85% of the population of the world disagrees with that statement.
Maybe in the past, but not since Bush has been in there.
I see no evidence of any moral high ground of the U.S. Government under Bush and Cheney. The only claim that they can make is that might makes right. But right now, we are in the process of an invasion of a foreign sovereign nation, where we have killed 10s of thousands of innocent civilians, simply because we didn't like the dictator that ran their nation. The U.S. is presently a rogue nation, like Syria or the Soviet Union of the 1950s and 1960s. But because it controls the greatest force, it acts with impunity.
America is much more than our present leadership, and more than our present actions on the world stage.
I think we all agree with that.
Weren't we talking about the Bush admin though?