Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Andrew Sullivan finds a Youtube video of George W. Bush on an Arab television station after the Abu Ghraib situation went public, explaining the difference between a free nation with the rule of law and a dictatorship. He says:
It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. ... It's very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. ... In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation.
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? Video below the fold.
Politics
Comments
Is this going to get the "right wing" involved now? Or will Bush not be a "true enough Scotsman" now? I hope this video makes the national media.
Posted by: Umlud | April 28, 2009 9:50 AM
"A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation."
Sure he would. He'd "say" it.
Posted by: Tom | April 28, 2009 9:54 AM
It's like raaaaaaaain on your wedding day!
Posted by: Adrienne | April 28, 2009 9:56 AM
What else is interesting in this video is Bush's extremely conciliatory tone. Until he gets to the "they hate us for our freedoms" part of his response, he's exceedingly humble and loyal to our principles. I think that was the right tack at the time, if only he'd carried it out. What's ironic is that Bush's tone here is exactly what Obama is criticized for from the right. They still do not get that real strength does not require one to act like a 13 year old cowardly bully.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 28, 2009 10:14 AM
"Real strength does not require one to act like a 13 year old cowardly bully."
Nicely put, Mr Heath.
Posted by: JP | April 28, 2009 12:16 PM
He probably thinks a full investigation would find him innocent of any wrongdoing.
Soooo, lets have an investigation!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2009 1:12 PM
Bush damning himself out of his own mouth. Great!
Arlen Specter flippin' to the dems. Fucking priceless!!
Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2009 1:15 PM
There's no room for moderates in the GOP anymore. That's why their party is rapidly disappearing.
Posted by: Robert Faber | April 28, 2009 3:34 PM
This fits well with a statement he made in March 2003:
"War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 28, 2009 7:22 PM
Prosecute him!
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 28, 2009 8:31 PM
Thanks for all of the,"in other words" George, because none of us could quite understand your advanced vocabulary the first time around.
Posted by: Ick of the East | April 29, 2009 9:14 AM
Investigating and prosecuting Bush now would be mostly futile - he's no longer in a position to do significant further damage, and punishing him won't undo anything that happened while he was in power.
Posted by: Tom | April 29, 2009 9:20 AM
Ed:
I blame a teleprompter mutiny.
Posted by: llewelly | April 29, 2009 9:26 AM
"Investigating and prosecuting Bush now would be mostly futile - he's no longer in a position to do significant further damage, and punishing him won't undo anything that happened while he was in power."
Yeah. What's with the Rule of Law, anyway?
That's for us little folks.
Posted by: Rick R | April 29, 2009 10:34 AM
Tom wrote:
But it will send a message to future leaders that they will not be allowed to violate the law with impunity. And it will preserve the rule of law not only for the powerless but for the powerful. And it will help resurrect America's reputation around the world. And it will give us at least some measure of our moral credibility back. And it's simply the right thing to do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 29, 2009 10:48 AM
Tom:
What prosecuting Bush would achieve, at a minimum, is putting our pols on notice that such behavior has consequences. It might also begin to repair the damage to our foreign policy cred.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 12:40 PM
"Investigating and prosecuting Bush now would be mostly futile - he's no longer in a position to do significant further damage, and punishing him won't undo anything that happened while he was in power."
By this logic, why prosecute ANY crime that is not ongoing? Should we not prosecute a rapist for his crimes if he's lost the use of his legs, and can no longer chase after his prey?
Posted by: Rick R | April 29, 2009 2:43 PM