‘Only Criticize the Crimes of Our Enemies,’ Says the War Party

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have urged the Canadian government to arrest George W. Bush when he visits next week. This has hurt the feelings of Elliot Abrams:

What does one make of organizations that wish to see George W. Bush behind bars—but have never expressed similar sentiments about Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad, or Hassan Nasrallah?

…Amnesty and HRW are outspoken only with respect to certain officials. Bashar al-Assad visited Paris in 2008 and 2009: silence. Putin hit Brussels this year: silence. When in good health Fidel was a world traveler: silence. No calls for prosecution for the many killings such people have ordered. When it comes to enemies of the United States (recall Yasser Arafat as well) there may be an appeal to release a certain prisoner or a demand for more political rights, but there is no call to bar travel or to advance criminal charges. I am aware that heads of state have sovereign immunity, but why do these organizations not call for indictments by the International Criminal Court or at least demand that they be refused entry into decent countries altogether?

Remarkably, Abrams embarks on this impulsive tirade without realizing that he is engaging in exactly what he accuses Amnesty and HRW for engaging in. He is upset because he thinks they only criticize people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Hosni Mubarak, King Hamad Khalifa, and others of his ideological ilk. Yet nowhere in his moaning complaint does he exercise the objectivity he urges of Amnesty and HRW. He doesn’t even address – or deny! – the horrible, deadly, torturous crimes the Bush administration implemented. He merely suggests they criticize others for crimes, instead of Bush. He is pathetically blind to the fact that he is engaging in precisely the logical fallacy he blames them for.

Even if it were true, which it is not, that Amnesty and HRW were withholding criticism of those Abrams mentions, it wouldn’t erase the fact that their criticisms of Bush for his massive crimes are entirely valid. Apparently, Abrams is at least smart enough to recognize that, which is why he doesn’t even dare claim that they’re invalid. He cleverly chooses to ignore the criticisms of Bush’s crimes, because he knows he cannot deny them. These are the argumentation tactics of a seven year old.

  • skulz fontaine

    Lemme see here, Fidel Castro didn't start any wars. Nope. Vlad Putin? Again, nada. The Georgian debacle does not count here. What's his name, Loopy Suck-ass-Villi started that mess. Bashar al-Assad? He's a brutal wad but again, no wars of naked aggression. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah? Nope. Nasrallah went balls up on Israel which was deserved but, he didn't start a war.
    Wow, Abrams went 0 for 4. What a chump.

  • mrraven

    Neo-cons, and noe-libs like Oily Bomber are partisan hypocrites about state murder? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

  • stefminus

    isn't this silly boy abrams a convicted perjurer?

    • Orville H. Larson

      Yeah, but as a District of Corruption insider, he got a pardon.

  • muzz al atesta

    May this fascist punk someday bump into and piss off a MS-13 gangbanger who was orphaned by Elliotts death squad buddies in the Salvadorian Civil War.

    i doubt it, but if you're out there yahweh, please strike down some divine vengeance on this sorry excuse of a man.

    worldly justice has unfortunately failed to hold this *!¢?x*! to account for his vile deeds.

  • Bob

    @Muzz Al Atesta, Yahweh does indeed exist and justice WILL be done, but in HIS time.

  • Orville H. Larson

    I agree with Amnesty International. Bush–the ex-Chickenhawk-in-Chief/Torturer-in-Chief/Warmonger-in-Chief–ought to be in jail somewhere.

    Abrams, that chickenhawk Israel-Firster, ought to get the hell over to Israel. It's where his loyalties truly lie.