Surely Krauthammer was aware that there were unread reports on Rumsfeld's desk that documented abuses by American guards against Iraqi prisoners. There have been plenty of reports of Rumsfeld scoffing at the Geneva Convention standards and issuing orders that led right down through the chain of command to policies like the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. How in God's name is this comparable to Waco? That was a judgement call, a bad one ultimately, to end the seige of the Branch Davidian compound after two months and take the residents into custody, in particular a religious nut case law breaker who was resisting arrest. Ultimately he brought the house down on his head and that of the residents, particularly children, by torching the compound. Reno's mistake is simply not comparable to the immoral policy decisions that led inevitably to the horrors at Abu Ghraib. But maybe some think otherwise. This is a thread on comparing political decisions and their moral equivalency. I'd be interested in the perspective of others.

Abu Ghraib and Waco as morally equivalent.


The question is: Does comparing Abu Ghraib with Waco make a fair point about equivalent errors in policy between two different administrations or is such a comparison so grossly partisan in trying to find a political way out for the BA that it renders the one making such a comparison outside the boundaries of serious political discussion?




Edited to clarify debate question

I get it. Krauthammer is thinking people are angry because the Bush administration might have allowed the humiliation and torture of war (or are they political?) prisoners, whereas the Clinton administration made a serious mistake and admitted to it. Therefore, nobody should be ticked at the Bush administration.

Nope, no moral equivalency whatsoever. For one thing, the Bush administration is owning up to no mistake at all. None. Nor is it taking responsibility for what others, including myself, see as huge glaring mistakes. The Clinton administration was big enough to admit to mistakes, no matter how questionable the judgements were from the right side of politics. The Bush administration has no such morality to claim.

The Bush administration seems to think it is infallible, even divinely inspired. And this regalitosis looks to be a common trait among the top staff, perhaps even the lower staff, and who knows? It might be a job requirement like testifying to your accepting Jesus for a job at Focus on the Family.

My take on this is that people in general are ashamed of our behavior, as symbolized by the behavior of certain soldiers, in Iraq. Krauthammer wants to blame the soldiers, as does the Bush administration. This shirking of leadership responsibility is what might be bothering some undecided voters -- and the Bush administration knows this, but it is beyond this administration to admit to a mistake.

It is and always has been a fundamental character flaw.

Now to be fair, Clinton himself had a big character flaw. He messed around on his wife. Bush has no such character flaw. He is faithful to his wife. I am sure that the soldiers who are now up for court martial for the bad treatment of prisoners thank God each and every day that President Bush is faithful to his wife, thus providing good moral example for married men everywhere.

Heh, Krauthammer's logic is about the same as the above paragraph's warped sense of propriety.

So in summary, I don't think people deciding now whether to support another four years of the Bush administration are all that upset that mistreatment of prisoners went on, at least at this point. There was certainly shock and disappointment, even shame, at first -- and I believe this was a universal revulsion to what we witnessed.

I do think that the deciding voters are now disappointed with how the Bush adminstration regularly dodges responsibility for its own decisions and actions. A clear pattern has emerged, and because of this, Krauthammer and other right wing cheer leaders have to twist logic more than ever to accomplish their professional missions.

So the Clinton adminstration made mistakes. However, it at least admitted to them, except for the little blue dress incident. And for that, Clinton was impeached. Krauthammer wants us to reelect an administration that can't admit to mistakes.

Don't think this dog hunts, fetches, or does the trick.


Edited to fix quote

Well Bush did apologize to King Abdullah of Jordan and promised he would do something to prevent the abuses in the future. But I know of no mea culpa coming from him. Maybe Rumsfeld was more contrite. I know he made some kind of apology but I'm not clear exactly what he said. Like you say acknowledging error is not something the BA does very well.

However this is off my main point. To me unleashing an unforeseeable chain of events while trying to make a legal arrest is a far cry from imposing a broad policy of torture or something very close like sexual humiliation in complete disregard of the rules of the Geneva Convention to get prisoners, many of whom they must have known were simply innocent folks trapped in a dragnet, to reveal the names and hiding places of other insurgents. And they continued ignoring these abuses despite reports from the Red Cross and other agencies, including internal military investigations, that these abuses were going on.

For Krauthammer to equate, in apple and oranges fashion, an act of suicide by a wanted criminal at a moment in time to avoid arrest with an extended policy of prisoner torture, which as you say they do not take responsibility for in any direct sense, simply means he has taken leave of any notion of the character or moral scale of what these two different situations represent. Perhaps Krauthammer just refuses to acknowledge that this kind of torture and humiliation generally took place or it had any relation to the BA's prisoner policy.

My former step-son used to come home from school in trouble for hitting another kid. When asked why he did this, he would invariably complain that another kid in the class slugged some other kid. Totally unrelated incident, but that was his shot at trying to make it seem like it was ok because someone else did something equally bad or worse.

He was 8 years old at the time.

Did Clinton ever complain when he made a huge mistake that Bush 41 did something similar or worse and that would make the okay? I can't recall. Would be curious to see a citation for that, though.

However, when this administration screws up, the apologists often fall back on "well someone else (Clinton, al Qaeda, whatever) did something equivalent or worse!" and that's supposed to make it just fine.

As with my former step-son, they need to stop acting like eight-year-old kids.

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br />- Starting New Topics<br />- Survival Guide<br />- The Rules<br />- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

I'd have to say that this is a case of reaching for hyperbole while standing on the hypothetical. Anyone in a position of power given sufficient assurance and/or lack of guidance can be almost guaranteed to cross the line at least some of the time. Two studies come to mind: Milgram Study as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the sense that Waco and Abu Ghraib involve guards and guarded, I suppose you could argue that these fall into the general category of abuse of power; this is where the similarities end, however.

Waco was a law enforcement activity gone awry; whereas, the prisoner torture debacle has intentional players. The evidence strongly suggests that the incineration of the Davidian compound was internally initiated, that is, started by the Davidians themselves; whereas, no one is suggesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoners were torturing themselves. The Davidians were shooting back at the FBI/ATF agents; whereas, the Iraqi prisoners did not reciprocate torture on the guards. The FBI/ATF agents didn't quickly run into the compound to photograph the immolating Davidian cultists; whereas, the guards at Abu Ghraib willfully (and likely with permission) photographed their victims.

It is true that Reno ordered the Waco operation and did admit culpability when it went badly. As I recall, Reno almost lost her job, yet the Clinton administration had just been inaugurated: the honeymoon period was still in effect. Clinton hadn't entered the US into war nor had he prescribed the doctrine of preemption as the justification for entering war. Waco, Texas (last I heard) is still on US soil; Abu Ghraib, Iraq (last I heard) is not.

If you want a fair comparison to egregious happenings under previous US regimes, I'd suggest looking at the My Lai Massacre as an example. In my opinion, everyone involved from the grunts on the ground at My Lai through the entire chain of command (including the Secretary of Defense) should have been brought up on charges.

Well stated. It's strange that Krauthammer who I've always rated as one of the heavy weights of the right would make such a ludicrous comparison. Is there no limit to partisanship?

I read all three links and although familiar in general with the studies and My Lai it was important to once again read how the cocktail of authority, stress and power and a desensitized environment and the absence of humane, enforced guidelines can wreck havoc on a personal morality structure and encourage dormant tendencies that we don't like to admit to. I agree that Abu Ghraib and My Lai work much better as an analogy. Interesting that Calley said he also never heard anything about the Geneva convention standards. Standards taken seriously matter and I wonder if this administration gets that yet. Interesting that the My Lai massacre, according to the article, seemed to have undercut the moral dimension of the conflict severely and played a key part in politically forcing our withdrawal. Sounds familiar.

I think these links point out how critical it is to get the mission clear. Krauthammer doesn't seem to have much sense of that as long as the ideological platitudes are in place and turns it into simply a low level partisan battle over Rumsfeld's resignation, with the prison abuses treated as a minor distraction. But soldiers and guards are operating in a very stressful and unfamiliar territory and there has to be very clear standards and accountability and strong leadership built in.

Here's another link to add to yours. It shows how amoral but initially innocuous appearing standards defined and ordered by a strong authority figure can swiftly corrupt a group. Apparently normal high school kids can be enthusiastically turned into an SS outfit with surprisingly little effort - The Wave
I located an even better and more complete description - The Third Wave
This might also explain why the ideological narrow political chat forum freerepublic will always have more posters than the politically open americasdebate.

I too am having difficulty comparing Abu Ghraib with the siege at Waco.

1)-Did Reno approve the military-style siege on civilians, to include the use of tear gas? Yes
-Did Rumsfeld approve the abuse? No

2)-Was anyone sent to prison for their participation in the siege on Waco? No.
-Was anyone sent to prison for their participation in abuse of prisoners? Yes, with numerous trials still pending.

3)-Did anyone lose their job over Waco? No, though the ATF Director was moved to a job in a different government agency.
-Did anyone lose their job over Abu Ghraib abuse? Yes, and many further disciplinary actions are pending until after trial.

No comparison whatsoever.

Krauthammer's comparison is sadly laughable. Ever since Abu Ghraib, the Bush adminstration and some of their hard-core supporters are looking for ways to justify what happened there. There seems to be a standard Bush protocol being followed here:

1) Deny incident exists
--Rumsfeld new about this for about a year in advance, as well as Gen. Myers, I think. Yet rather than do something about it, they pulled the ostrich maneuver.

2) Deny severity of incident
--"We confront our abuses openly, and they don't." (paraphrasing Bush)
--"Our prisons aren't as bad as Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers." (paraphrasing Bush again)
--Let's not forget that 70-90% at Abu Ghraib were simply picked up in a random street sweep.
----In the words of Jon Stewart, "Is there a government where the abuse... doesn't happen at all?"

3) (for top administration officials) Deny any responsibility, and find some low-level sap to blame it on. (Anyone remember that Seymour Hersh article saying that Rumsfeld did approve of the abuse?)

4) Try to find something else to distract the public eye.
--See? See? Nick Berg, an innocent American, was beheaded by terrorists! Therefore, we should just carpet bomb all of those Iraqi (insert expletive)s !
--Republican radio talk show hosts Michael Savage and Sean Hannity played Berg's audio screams over the air as some sort of sick justification for what we did at Abu Ghraib.

5) Blame the Democratic Party for actually trying to get to the bottom of the incident.
--Remember Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) "outraged at the outrage" speech about those damn "humanitarian do-gooders"?

6) Blame Clinton or his administration just because CLINTON HAD CONSENUAL SEX WITH MONICA LEWINSKI! STOP THE PRESSES!.
--See Krauthammer's article above. Okay, it doesn't touch on Clinton's sex life like it seems most "blame Clinton first" people do, but it's the only reason I can think of so far that the Republicans use him as their whipping boy even though he's out of office.

Now, as for Krauthammer's actual article...

First of all, comparing Janet Reno to Donald Rumsfeld is wrong. Reno said, "It was my decision, and I take responsibility." Rumsfeld said, "I take responsibility, but it wasn't my decision, and it wasn't really torture that happened at Abu Ghraib, it was just some harmless hazing. And it wasn't widespread, just a few bad apples." Reno didn't make excuses. She took the blow, and moved on. Rumsfeld refuses to simply acknowledge that what happened there was nothing short of torture.

Also, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, he says that "the insurgency is waning." I swear that everyone from Dan Senor to George Bush has been echoing this same thing for the past... 8 months? 10? 12? For a waning insurgency, it sure seems to have a long shelf life. I would really like someone, be it Krauthammer, or Rumsfeld, or Bush, to present some evidence to prove this fact.

edited to make Inhofe link hot.

That's because it was, absolutely, her decision. She approved the seige directly, irrefutably. How exactly did she take a blow for any of that? Nothing happened whatsoever.

Could you provide a source for this quote?

MPP, I must say I'm a little surprised at your response. It reminds me of that Biblical quote, "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."


The seige had lasted two months. There was ample time to surrender. David Koresh was under a charge of illegal gun manufacture and sale and also was claimed by former members to be a child molester plus he had killed 4 ATF agents who made a legal approach on the compound. The evidence shows the fire that caused the deaths were deliberately started from within. Tear gas is a completely legal police method of immobilizing a person or group so you don't have to use lethal force. Do you define legal use of tear gas as abuse?

As far as Rumsfeld, Seymour Hersh and others have tracked the decisions of Rumsfeld directly to the abuse that occurred. Apparently sexual humiliation as an interrogation technique was quite explicitly approved. Certainly ignoring the constraints mandated by the Geneva convention went to the top. But no, I don't believe Bush told the lady to put a collar and leash on anybody or specificly ordered the naked Iraqis stacked like cordwood but it arguably was an interpretable extension of his guidelines. He certainly showed little interest in these kind of reports until the photos were published. Did Rumsfeld approve the abuse? I'd say yes. He set the standard that resulted in the abuse.



Why should law enforcement officers be sent to prison because David Koresh and his confederates set fire to the compound. Strange question.

MPP, your comparisons are apples and oranges big time. One question. If a clear link can be shown between Rumsfelds guidelines and policies and the abuses at Abu Ghraib would you recommend he be forced to resign?

Oops, my bad. I thought I mentioned that quote was paraphrased as well, but I guess I forgot to add that in. Hey, I'm a newb. Cut me some slack.

As for your sources:

Here is where Rumsfeld debated the use of the "t" word.



During Rwanda, under the Clinton administration, the Defense Department was debating the use of the "g" word, or "genocide," in dealing with Rwanda. I still think that the least Bill Clinton, or Richard Cohen, or whoever was responsible could've done was to acknowledge that genocide was occuring in that country.

The same standard applies with Rumsfeld. There's a difference between "nastiness" and "torture."

Also, in this Washington Post article, they show how Rumsfeld stuck his head in the sand rather than acknowledge his involvement or that the abuses happened on his watch at all, be it "a few bad apples" or not. It also states in the article that this abuse was widespread, not just a few isolated incidents.

The abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib was a criminal act, not a administrative decision. The siege on Waco was an administrative decision. As you said, it’s apples and oranges. There's a lot of hyperbole in the posts here. Waco was ‘law enforcement gone awry’? Now, that’s a gentle euphemism. It was better because “agents didn’t run to take photos of the immolating people”. Oh, yes, that makes everything square. "Rumsfeld is guilty of genocide", and some spliced and regenerated quote combining the words of Rumsfeld and Rush Limbaugh.

The FBI used pyrotechnical tear gas canisters during that siege. Even ‘standard’ tear gas should only be used as a very last resort for a violent, confrontational mob. This was an enclosed area, with a limited food supply (they had negotiated for milk from the agents)…those people weren’t going anywhere. It was a reckless decision, made in spite of a lot of contrary advice from the FBI's own behavioral scientists and negotiators. The negotiators specifically recommended that Bradley vehicles not be brought up to the compound. Despite that advice, the Bradleys were run up and down in front of the compound as a show of force. (A memorandum dated March 5, 1993) FBI behavioral scientists stated that "in traditional hostage situations, a strategy which has been successful has been negotiations coupled with ever increasing tactical presence. In this situation however, it is believed this strategy, if carried to excess, could eventually be counter productive and could result in loss of life."

Furthermore, all of that could have been avoided in the beginning by obtaining Koresh outside of the compound. He was a regular jogger, and went into town from time to time to get food. An undercover ATF agent visited the compound and even went target shooting with him. Koresh actually offered to allow government agents to inspect his domicile for possible firearms violations before any of this. The agents declined the invitation. That is a matter of Congressional record.


Others have disagreed. I’ll put that speculation right up there with this . Sworn testimony by some experts indicates that Delta forces were participants in siege, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Still conspiracy theory, until proven otherwise.

My point is one of accountability. Where is the accountability for Waco? There was none whatsoever, in spite of gross negligence from ATF agents from the very beginning, later the FBI, which culminated in the siege at the end. The surviving Branch Davidians were acquitted of murder charges because of the issue of self-defense.

The ball is rolling in the Abu Ghraib abuse cases. Soldiers are being tried, and sentenced. It will probably take years to finish, but corrections are actively underway, and many have been made.

Absolutely, but there isn't yet, and every poster so far on this thread is under an assumption that it's some sort of foregone conclusion.

Wow...I'm finding myself in position I thought I'd never be in: defending the actions of the FBI/ATF. The topic for debate is to argue for/against a moral equivalency between Waco and Abu Ghraib; not whether or not one can draw parallels between the bad things done (at least how I've read it). It's clear to me that bad things have been done. But, are they morally equivalent? I don't believe so. I don't believe that the FBI/ATF agents ever had the intention to incinerate the Davidians inside the compound. If you can show that there was an intention (and the burden of proof would be on you), then I believe you can make a case for moral equivalency. Otherwise, all you have is a comparison between bad things happening.

I know that there is much ambiguity with regard to pyrotechnic vs. non-pyrotechnic tear gas canisters. Again, if you can show that: (1) pyrotechnic canisters were actually used (you may have already); (2) pyrotechnic canisters were intentionally used; (3) the FBI/ATF agents foresaw the the possible (even probable) repercussions of using those canisters; (4) the FBI/ATF agents desired those canisters to start a fire inside the compound; last but not least, (5) the canisters were what in fact started the fire -- if all those things can be demonstrated, then I believe you have made the case for moral equivalency.

Again, the moral equivalency discussion is not about whether or not Waco was a bad thing™. Clearly, it was. Clearly, the FBI/ATF made egregious mistakes, were too gung-ho, were too myopic; and many should have been held accountable (including Reno). But, unless it can be demonstrated that those agents wished to intentionally harm those cultists, then moral equivalency will remain unwarranted.

Also, one other thing I'd like to comment on. I know the smiley faces and asides are intended to indicate the passion of your position in this debate; however, they amount to ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, the quotes you've taken from my post are contextually disingenuous as you have used them to present a position I do not take. At no point have I ever stated (or believe for that matter) that what happened at Waco is somehow okay when compared to Abu Ghraib. And in the first part of my earlier post, you should have read that I believe that, in the general sense of abuse of power, these two situations are similar. I'll go one futher and say: in the general sense of abuse of power and that fact that people died as a result of the abuse of power, these two situations are similar. However, this still does not make these cases morally equivalent. Again, I recommend reading on the My Lai massacre for something with more moral equivalency to Abu Ghraib.

With the death of Ronald Regan yesterday, perhaps Bush and his administration could take a page out of that president's textbook. As you say Bush continues to pretend there is no responsablity at all for this series of events for the higher command staff.

On the other hand, Reagan, faced with the Iran Contra affair, made the following public statement:

"As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds -- well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch."



Bush's tactic of see no evil, hear no evil, take responsability for no evil is quite a departure from that statement, which took a great deal of courage and responsability...