I'm with Kerry on this one. "Remember Abu Ghraib?" the Post asks. -- I say the pigs get fat, the hogs get slaughtered.

A 10-15-04 Washington Post editorial entitled "Remember Abu Ghraib?" notes:

'In the past few weeks the presidential candidates have debated almost every aspect of the war on terrorism save one: the handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a remarkable omission . . ."

I am not going to do any other excerpts from the editorial; read it if you wish. Why?

Regardless of the President's public stance on what happened at Abu Ghraib, and what caused it, being at odds with the facts brought out by official investigations, this is one I think Kerry was smart to leave alone.

It was a breakdown in the military and its failure to send in properly trained personnel up to the task. It could have happened on Kerry's watch just as easily. (And this is certainly no defense of Secretary Rumsfeld; if Bush is re-elected, I suspect we may see a change.)

The forces there are our forces. I support them.

Bush has enough screwups that have his and the Veep's names on them not to lay any on them that have an explantion that give him support (remember the hard to look at -- that wasn't nice -- Attorney General Janet Reno who took the blame under Clinton as he headed for the hills in the responsibilty for the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; her rating went as high as a Georgia pine; the President's down).

Good job Kerry leaving this one out of the debates. Having been in the military, I would have resented your blaming this on the President when it was not his fault (and I am not arguing that the buck does not stop with the President, you understand; I am talking about winnng and election and gaining desired votes).