Don't Blame Us

This morning, watching TV, I saw our Secretary of Defense standing in front of a Pentagon seal complaining about the coverage of the US Military of late.

Really the thrust of his message was that most of the things we hear in the mass media about current events, things like Abu Ghraib or the camp at Guantanamo Bay, are in fact false. This was couched within many other complaints about how we never hear about good things that are happening around the world.

It turns out that I have little sympathy. I guess maybe it doesn't matter that I have little sympathy - but it is my blog afterall.

The bit that got me to notice this particular address was that although he denied the reports, and complained about other coverage, he never really offered us any reason to believe his denial. I think the reason that the "Are Too!" stories persist is that the best response we ever really seem to get from officials is "Are Not!"

It really doesn't say much for our national level of discourse.

In the absence of any real proof, something we can see, someone who doesn't have a vested interest to sit for an interview; really I can't see any reason why anyone would give up their initial opinion.

So its less than 1% of soldiers. So there have been a bushel of military investigations and only a very few charges filed and even fewer convictions. These outcomes are the outcomes the administration would hope for and therefore can seem perhaps a little too convenient to be believed.

Why not an independent review?

I can think of only one real reason it cannot be made to work.

Well maybe that's not quite the real thing. The reason is because its not what they want to do. What I meant to say was that I can think of only one real reason they can't come up for a reason to want to do it.

That would be that they don't like how it would portray them.

In the absence of a portrayal of any other nature how could we come to any other conclusion?

If its not as bad as we're hearing it, then why not show us an independent review that testifies to the opposite?

I for one would welcome it. And then I would jump right on Rumsfeld's wagon about how we don't hear the positive news. Well I think actually I would still like to hear a definition and legal rationale behind "enemy combatant." I still haven't figured out how someone we've detained can be neither a criminal entitled to the rights provided under the Constitution, or a POW entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Apparently our leaders have figured that one out, but I've never really heard it vigorously defended - really never even heard it explained. And truthfully, I can't even recall hearing the question asked.

That's one I'd like to hear explained and independently reviewed as well. Doesn't seem very likely though.