A Torturous Coverup

A Torturous Coverup
by Jean Carnahan

Columnist Gail Collins recently made the following proposal: “Given the number of crises we’ve had . . .  it might be a good idea for all three candidates to disavow in advance anything stupid a supporter, adviser, staffer or radio talk-show host says for the rest of this year.  We could give the blanket disavowal a fancy name, like “Article 300,” she wrote.   

             “Article 300,” (or whatever), could be invoked when a candidate is forced to explain some ludicrous remark that occurred in his/her presence, say, over the last two decades.  The exemption would cover supporters, professors, pastors, staffers, ex-lovers, estranged relatives, and second cousins once removed. 

When candidates are freed from having to deny, explain, apologize, defend, renounce, and/or disavow the opinions of those beyond their control, they can focus more clearly on the economy.

            I assume that Ms. Collins is advocating “Article 300” to supplement the current GOP “Rule of Implied Approval.”  You may remember this as the unwritten rule invoked against Sen. Obama for not hammering his mouthy pastor when he disagreed with his sermons. 

            Recently, it was revealed that the committee to “Refine the Art of Torture and Sentencing (RATS)” met regularly in the White House basement and was attended by Condi, Rummy, Powell, Tenet, Cheney and Ashcroft.

Had any of the attendees adhered to the Implied Approval rule, he/she would have denounced the rascals, walked out of the meeting, and left the administration.   Instead, they were all regular participants in the grim task of determining the level of pain and torment they would inflict on prisoners of war.   Apparently, only John Ashcroft, pricked by conscience, suggested that history might not judge their gathering kindly.

Now, there is a difference between these White House socials and the Wright church service.  Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s overzealous sermonizing caused no loss of life or limb, nor did it damage the nation’s moral standing in the world.  In such cases, I can see where Collin’s “Article 300” would apply.

But, the “RATS” committee was re-defining who we were as a nation.  They were making moral decisions that would not only effect the conduct of our troops, but how we would be viewed by civilization.  Ashcroft got that . . . a little bit.  But, not enough to make a difference.

As it stands now, the GOP “Rule of Implied Approval” can be imposed on congregation members who don’t walk out on a disagreeable church service.  But the same rule is irrelevant for our top leaders when plotting a torture strategy that circumvents the law.

Indeed, it’s a strange world we live in.