Excuses for evil

It is despicable, though not surprising, that Obama is trying to block the release of photographs of abuse of prisoners in Iraq. This is not small stuff, this is the rape of minors: abominations, atrocities.

The reaction of liberals like Michael Tomasky, equivocating over an action (suppression of the evidence) that is so transparently wrong, is shocking. He says:

I don’t know what’s the right thing to do here. Yes, I’m prepared for many of you to attack my moral cowardice, as you did during the torture posts from a couple weeks back. But imagine you’re the president of the United States and you’re responsible for the safety of soldiers in wars you didn’t even start, and imagine that the release of these photos could so enrage people that it would dramatically endanger those soldiers. And remember: the people, or at least some people, who committed and oversaw these atrocities have already been convicted of crimes and/or punished in the military context.

It’s not moral cowardice. Moral cowardice would be to say nothing. To provide excuses, to give cover or to extenuate the attempted cover-up, is to be implicated in it. Why should anyone “imagine if” they are the president? Are there not people with whom it is more important to empathise, here, such as the victims of the atrocities?

But to follow Tomasky’s twisted logic for a moment, and imagine oneself as the president, the answer is very simple: get the fucking soldiers out of Iraq now, not a phased withdrawal that will remove some troops by 2011 and keep tens of thousands there for as long as the US deems necessary. (What, exactly, is the difference between Obama’s actual policy and McCain’s “100 years” quote that his campaign got so much mileage out of mocking?) OK Tomasky – is that a “genuine attempt to deal with this conundrum”?