Economist: Resign, Rumsfeld

[muriel_volestrangler]

The whole cover:


YOU are fighting against international terrorists in a battle that both they and you describe as being one about values. You fight a war against Saddam Hussein at your initiative, not his, and you say that it is a war about law, democracy, freedom and honesty. A big metaphorical banner hangs above both wars proclaiming that your aim is to bring freedom, human rights and democracy to the Arab world. All of that sets admirably high standards for the conduct of your forces as well as of your government itself. Now, however, some of your own armed forces are shown to have fallen well below those standards. What do you do?

One answer is exactly what George Bush has done in response to revelations of torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail (see article): to make it clear, in public, that you find such action abhorrent and unacceptable, and that the perpetrators of it will be punished. That has also been the approach of the British government in response to the publication of photographs that may well be fakes but that could nevertheless indicate that genuine abuses have taken place (see article). Yet such statements are not enough, especially in the American case. The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him.
...
This week, things seemed to be improving as an Iraqi-led force began to police Fallujah, the rebellious Sunni town to which the Americans had laid siege, and as the main Shia rebel, Muqtada al-Sadr, was becoming more isolated by his fellow Shias. Mr Bush's television broadcasts condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib and promising punishment probably helped cool the atmosphere, though he ought also to have offered a straightforward apology. Better still if he and Mr Rumsfeld were now to demonstrate one of the true American values: that senior people take responsibility.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. "The Weekly Bush/Blair Apologist" was the subtitle of that rag

last time i looked. I let my subscription expire a while back.....

[skooooo]

2. unbelievable....

...for a journal like the Economist to come out with such a bold statement. About time.

[T_i_B]

3. Here's the links

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=2647493

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2663793

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Thanks - I hadn't realised I left them out (nt)

[fizzana]

4. The Economist does have a coservative bent but unlike most

conservatives it doesn't march in lockstep with Bush or Blair. They have been critical of Bush on economic and other issues for the last couple of years.

It's always worth reading, despite its political leanings.

[Atlanticist]

8. Hmm, maybe

I'm a long time subscriber to the Economist (since 94 I think). I like the Economist because it at least looks beyond the orthodoxy at issues like legalizing drug use, it's relatively liberal views on crime and punishment etc, and it's mostly sensible economic position on things like free trade.

However, the one huge blind spot in my view is Iraq. The Economist has consistently got the War wrong, and has never admitted it. It wholeheartedly supports the War, even though the original reason (WMD) has been shown to be false, and it now parrots the view that it's about installing democracy. This is NOT the reason given to the British parliament, or I think Congress, for starting a preemptive war.

Though the Economist has panned Bush for his fiscal policy, his Energy bill and his steel tarriffs, it still seems to "broadly" support him - though it also called for him to replace Cheney a few weeks ago.

I'm going to wait to see who the Economist endorses in Nov. If it's Bush - that's it, I'm throwing in the towel and will never read it again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Powerful cover.

[PATRICK]

7. A sign of the loss of the rational

Conservatives is becoming a flood. This middle ground feel good about capitalism position is looking elsewhere and hating Bushco. The kings above are probably trapped and trembling and not quite as stubborn about Bush as Bush is himself.

All he has left are ignorant nuts and stooges on the payroll.

He can't even steal a lackadaisical election with those.