Who is really to blame?

Some very interesting posts recently on the toture at Abu Ghraib prison and on torture policies in the US Goverment.
First the President and his weak explanation of how we send prisoners to countries who 'say' they don't use torture:

We operate within the law and we send people to countries where they say
they're not going to torture the people.

You can find other instances of sketchy behavior by the United States in the official report from Guantanamo and also from Uzbekistan. These links are courtesy of Andrew Sullivan who does a decent amount of commentary on the subject.

But we have Environmental Republican and some of his commentors who, while rightly admonishing those involved in the actual torture, fail to even connect it with the policies of Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration. Lyndie England, Charles Graner and the rest of the soldiers actions are a direct result of this administration's rationalization of torture. Gonzales gets a promotion and Bush gets a 'pass' from the media. As Sullivan points out:

But why hasn't the press corps been more aggressive than they have been?
Open-ended questions about "rendition" don't hack it. How about asking Bush
directly how he can send terror suspects to Syria and Uzbekistan? How about
asking him why he won't allow a legislative ban on CIA torture? How about asking him directly whether he considers "water-boarding" to be torture? This is about
as profound a moral issue as can be found in today's politics. And yet the press
lets the president off the hook. What gives? Are they really that
afraid?

If you feel so strongly about the perpetrators, you should feel as strongly about WHY they are doing this.

On the other hand, England is a 'skank' and a 'dirty whore'; he doesn't say why, so I'm left to assume it is because she had...GASP...sex while she was in Iraq and got pregnant. For someone so concerned with prejudices and Nazi this and Nazi that, you would think he wouldn't chose those specific words to describe a woman soldier. She is morally weak, there is no doubt about that, and I'm sure a lot of other words that a former soldier has every right to call her, but I think 'dirty whore' shows a little bit of his own prejudices.