Which One Am I Looking For?

This item appeared near the bottom of Philadelphia Inquirer writer Dick Polman's column about Dubya's most recent droning of his tired bromides concerning the Iraq debacle yesterday:

(Defense Secretary Donald "The Army You Have") Rumsfeld did suggest a solution the other day: He wants everyone to stop using the word insurgents, which he considers too positive. That's not likely to happen, however; Webster's dictionary defines an insurgent as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government."

I think Rumsfeld stumbled onto something with that remark, actually, but not for the reasons he thinks. "Insurgent" to me implies that there is in fact someone who could be in a role of trying to fight for good where evil exists, or perhaps not. At any rate, there is a clearly defined assumption that one side is good and one side is evil when you use that word.

Given that, where is "good" and where is "evil" right now in Iraq (notwithstanding our service people, who have been typically used as pawns by Bushco in its effort to expand its oil empire through expenditure of blood, limbs, and lives). The Sunnis were "bad" when we first invaded, partly because Saddam Hussein was one of them, but then became "good" when we realized that we had to win them over to some marginal degree to get the Iraqi constitution ratified. The Shiites have been "good" in a way, though they are closely tied to Iran and the murderer Al Zarqawi is most definitely one of them, so that makes them "bad," right? Well, yes and no. They are the majority, and Allawi and Chalabi (sounds like a Catskills nightclub act, doesn't it?), who are "reformed" Shiities, are the people we want to run the country (as if no one can see through that ruse...). And as for the Kurds, they have been "good" throughout since basically they have what amounts to their own country and they want us out and to be left alone, but if they end up having to fight the Shiites who want to establish an Islamist fundamentalist satellite state of Iran instead, then would the Kurds be "bad" if they fought back?

And don't think that none of this could happen. When our people leave, it's even money that civil war will bust out all over the place.

Actually, as I considered all of this, I recalled something I read about on Eschaton earlier today, where Atrios linked to Crooks and Liars. The site had video of a press conference with Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, and torture was briefly discussed. This is from C & L (hat tip to Atrios).

In a surprising event, General Pace actually corrected Rumsfeld publicly over policy. Let's hope his job isn't in jeopardy.

General Pace: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it,"

Rumsfeld: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

General Pace: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it ."

Thank you General-for demonstrating how a true military man should behave in a time of war while once again exposing Rumsfeld as the buffoon that he is.

No, I don't think that's quite the perfect word. Actually, I think Atrios was on target when he simply said, "Our leaders are truly scum."

Yep, that's the word that works for me!