The stuff from the pictures at Abu Ghraib ain't torture. It's abuse, but not torture. And yes, there is a difference.

If someone sees equivalence - as the bloviator from Massachusetts does - between Saddam's torture and the MPs' abuses, well, they must think that aggravated battery and capital murder are the same thing, too.

You are right, of course.

But there's some technical definition in the books somewhere, maybe Geneva Convention, that defines what we did as torture.

And I've found that it's impossible to argue with people about it. They've got their "definition," and that's it.

Similar to some people who regard a dictionary as law. "It's in Websters!" You can't argue with them, or explain that that's just some lexicographer's opinion.

(Or that, as I know from being formerly a bookseller, the name "Webster" is in the Public domaine, and I could publish my own Webster's Dictionary if I wanted to. Many do.)

I did my own post in response to your own. You’re right, I don’t understand your answer...

By the by; Every time I sell a dictionary to someone (dictionaries are something of a passion of mine), I try and explain to them the thing about Webster’s. I get a whole lot of blank looks. Same thing with “Robert’s Rules of Order”. Its probably a good thing that most people don’t need this information in day to day life...

The Geneva Convention proper doesn't define torture-- just says you're not supposed to do it. Since it says in the same breath that you're not supposed to engage in "cruel treatment" of POWs or noncombatants, the distinction is rather moot (given that we've agreed to abide by the Convention). If what went on at A.G. had been a deliberate policy of our government then Kennedy would have had a point. As it stands, he was being ridiculous.

Ah, don't you understand? Self-disgust is good. Self-disgust keeps us from acting; from doing anything to defend ourselves or change the status quo. As long as we can't act, we can't hurt anyone; or keep ourselves from getting hurt. But it's a small price to pay for peace, right? Well -- "peace," anyway.

Dear Mr. Cory:

You post a link to a Yahoo news article about a 70-year-old Iraqi woman who claimed to have been ridden like a donkey "by an American" while held prisoner. You post the link three times, and use it to prove your point about the perfidy of the current American administration and its war against terroristic forces in the Middle East. Something struck me as off about this article:

"The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, *said* she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and *believed* they were true.

"During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd *said,* she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and *questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.*

"Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she *'didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved.'*"

*Emphasis* mine. I don't see a whole lot of corroborating sources quoted here. I see a lot of "she saids" instead. Do you have more than one person who has backed up Clwyd's reported claim -- with actual fact, not just a story that some Westerner was told and which that Westerner said she "investigated" but then refused to go into detail about said investigation? (Which is not complete if she didn't interview all parties concerned.)

The rest of your post I just don't get. You are "uncomfortable" with America as a superpower. Well, would you like some of those "not as dedicated" to all those good things whose fruits you enjoy (though you "have no use for fruited plains" -- do you even understand what that means?) countries to be worthy of being as powerful as we are? How about those cultural giants, France and Germany? Do you think that if we give the raving loons in the Middle East _more power_ that they will be _happy_ and _nice to us_? In short, are you even thinking at all, instead of simply reacting out of fear?

John, you describe what Kennedy's first thought should have been. How do you know it wasn't? How do you know what he is thinking?

Short answer: you don't. Your whole attack is not against Kennedy but your image of Kennedy: Kennedy as a straw man for your bogeyman image of the left.

Now, I'll admit to using Limbaugh as a bogeyman for the right, but I have never presumed to know what he is thinking.

If you want to criticize his words, fine. I disagree, as it happens. I said almost exactly the same thing as Kennedy did to Deborah even before he made that remark. Am I a Tory? No, you know I'm not: my words were the heartfelt outcry of a patriot who is disgusted at the spectacle of Americans acting in that fashion. Could it not have been the same for Kennedy?

Well, my post is about the IMAGE Kennedy presents, (not not whether he's right or wrong.) Because I was trying to explain why I found the statement offensive (whether right or wrong.)

I should, of course, have said "his first thought APPEARS to have been." I don't presume to know what he's thinking.

And I would be thrilled and delighted to find out I'm wrong. I would be overjoyed to discover that his first thought, or first words, were to leap to defend the honor and reputation of those men and women of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who serve in our military. And then only second to decide that a mess must be cleaned up, even though the heavens fall.

I would be glad to learn that his words, "were the heartfelt outcry of a patriot who is disgusted at the spectacle of Americans acting in that fashion." I would even be delighted if he had the simple sense to PRETEND to feel that way, to present the appearance of loving America.

If I'm wrong about him, I will apologize with grovelings unlimited!

And if I'm presenting him as a bogeyman, it's because I think he represents the thinking of the core of his party, not because I think he's an extremist who can usefully be used to distort the truth. (As I would say you are similarly fair to use Rush to represent the mainstream of the right, but would not be if you used, say, Pat Buchannan as a bogeyman.)

I would be GLAD to learn that I'm wrong about Democrats. It would be much better for the country to have an opposition party that is patriotic and principled. Speaking as an embedded reporter here in Pelosiville, I just don't see it happening. People around here start to purr when they hear that American forces have done something wrong.