Monday, June 12, 2006

Andrew Sullivan on a roll

"A reader captures what has been in my mind and gut for the last few days: 'The BBC just released a video alleging yet another covered-up massacre of civilians by American personel [sic] in Iraq. 5 women, 4 children, and 2 men in Ishaqi in March. Just when I think I'm totally numb, I find out a fellow American may have executed a 6 month-old baby in the name of protecting me, and I can't hold back tears. What country are we in?' The same country that now practices torture. Cheney country." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 2:55 p.m

"Raw Story has now posted some photos of the corpses of children murdered in Ishaqi. Don't go there if you are squeamish, or believe that possible war crimes should not be covered by the media. Investigations continue, and exactly what happened has not been established. But the omens are grim. And these pictures of infants with bullet holes in their skulls simply defy my comprehension of what has happened to this country." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 3:49 p.m

"The conclusions about Ishaqi also seem to me to be provisional. More evidence may yet emerge. We should be cautious about drawing any firm conclusions yet." -- Time magazine's Andrew Sullivan, June 2, 7:54 p.m, responding to the news that an investigation has cleared U.S. troops of wrongdoing at Ishaqi.

Interesting how his tone and excitement changes as the story moves from quite possible U.S. atrocities to just atrocities. Andrew starts out opining "what country are we in?" and moves on to a bit of the standard not in my name but as the story continues to unfolds and it looks like this might (oh my) not be the result of U.S. action, we "should be cautious about drawing any firm conclusions yet." Most definitely Andrew, let us not get too far ahead of ourselves. Though you could still luck out and this tragedy may yet have been the direct result of U.S. action then you could go back to crowing.

No comments:

Post a Comment