Many lefty bloggers seem to be seizing on today's release of a brutal videotape depicting the beheading of an independent American contractor in Iraq. This act was evidently carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who the Bush administration declined to go after in 2002 and 2003 three times, for fear that doing so would have undermined its case for invading Iraq (the Pentagon knew al-Zarqawi was making ricin and knew where he was). Much of the talk seems to be centering around the idea that the beheading is revenge for the torture of Iraqi prisoners (as claimed on the videotape by al-Zarqawi), pointing out that "violence begets violence".

As much as I sympathize with the "cycle of violence" sentiment, al-Zarqawi (assuming he's responsible) doesn't need a reason to kill Americans -- or anyone else who gets in his way. He's a vicious bastard, period, and has proved it many times with unprovoked killings of troops and civilians alike. However, just as al-Zarqawi didn't need a reason, we've now given him an excuse. We've handed al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda another powerful recruiting tool, as people across the arab world who before might have been willing to give us the benefit of the doubt are now cheering al-Zarqawi on.

Don't get me wrong: violence does indeed beget violence. We've doubtless created new al-Zarqawi's by the torture of Iraqi civilians. But this act wasn't revenge. It was worse: it was the cold, calculated and predictable result of the Bush administration's breathtakingly stupid and shortsighted bending of the rules. We needed, more than ever, to do things by the book in order to root out al-Qaeda's support. Instead, the Bushies tore up the book and threw it out. As a result, al-Zarqawi gleefully pounced on the opportunity we've given him. He used it to his advantage. In fact, he would have been stupid not to, just as he and other militants would be stupid not to continue to use it.

You know, I saw the Friedman-esque rationales for the Iraq war, and agreed with many of them. The thing that made me come down against it in the end was the fear that the Bush administration would handle the aftermath incompetently. I worried that the war would end up making us less safe, and make things even worse for the Iraqis.

But I really had no idea just how completely they'd screw this thing up. Their capacity for incompetence has truly defied all reasonable prediction. This isn't a partisan judgement, much as I'd like to see Bush defeated in November for other reasons. There is just no way to put lipstick on this pig and turn it into a swan.

I'm hoping against hope that Bush will, somehow, figure out how to clean up this mess soon. We can't afford to let this go on any longer. Fixing this problem can't wait for a new president. Mr. Bush, do what you have to do, but fix this, for the country you say you love, and the Iraqis you claim to care about.

Looks like the wingnuts have come up with yet another way to slime Kerry. In their desperation, it would seem they've recently discovered concern over the rules of war and treatment of prisoners.

So, just to follow the logic, here's a hypothetical conversation with a wingnut on the subject.

WINGNUT: Did you know that John Kerry admitted to having violated the Geneva Conventions and committed war crimes? What a hypocrite he is now, condemning war crimes in Iraq.

NORMAL GUY: You mean to tell me that John Kerry was caught red-handed and confessed to having tortured prisoners?

WINGNUT: Well, no, but it's the same thing. He admitted to having shot civilians in free-fire zones! On national TV! That's against the Geneva Conventions.

NORMAL GUY: So, wait a minute. He wasn't torturing prisoners?

WINGNUT: No, but like I said, it's the same thing.

NORMAL GUY: But he was caught and charged, right?

WINGNUT: Nope. He got away with it.

NORMAL GUY: He wasn't caught or charged? Then why did he admit to it on TV?

WINGNUT: Well, because he was stupid. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: But I heard that he protested against the war. Wasn't he protesting atrocities?

WINGNUT: Well, yes. But that doesn't matter. And he hated America.

NORMAL GUY: And wasn't his admission part of an attempt to draw attention to the fact that both he and thousands of others were ordered to fire on civilians under combat conditions? Isn't that quite a bit different than torturing a bunch of helpless prisoners and not blowing the whistle on the crime?

WINGNUT: John Kerry hated America. And he committed war crimes.

NORMAL GUY: Well, if trying to stop atrocities means he hated America, then why are you complaining about the atrocities he supposedly committed? Doesn't that mean you hate America, too?

WINGNUT: Four more years! Four more years!

Of course, the wingnut may complain that it wasn't the atrocities, but the hypocrisy that they're complaining about. But if John Kerry worked tirelessly to end atrocities in Vietnam, it makes little sense to claim he's being hypocritical in condemning atrocities in Iraq. In fact, he appears to have been remarkably consistent.

Yet another reason to vote Kerry in November: basic, bedrock principles.

When people complain about the torture of Iraqi prisoners, why don't they remember that we're dealing with bad people? These people aren't decent and they have no sense of mercy or morality. Besides, Saddam tortured people worse than we have.

Have people forgotten the lessons of September 11?

I've seen these sentiments expressed in one form or another over the last few days. I find them profoundly disturbing and deeply shortsighted.

We've been dealing with "not decent people" since the founding of the country. There is absolutely no reason to assume that we now have to abandon basic principles of decency and civilized behavior.

People keep saying that 9/11 justifies an "anything goes" attitude. But far more than 3000 Americans have died throughout history to create a country based upon basic civil rights, a country that respects the rule of law, a country that eschews abhorrent treatment of prisoners and the accused, regardless of what those prisoners have allegedly done or the treatment they are used to.

Do we really want to get into a discussion about whether our torture was "quite as bad as Saddam's"? Isn't the whole idea that we have torture in common with Saddam sickening?

Torture isn't justified. It is a bad way to get reliable information, and it's a very good way to ensure that the same thing will be done right back to us. Additionally, a main part of our strength in the world is the moral authority we carry. That means we keep our word, like adherence to the Geneva Conventions. That means we uphold a standard of conduct which all people should abide by, even if our enemies don't. That means we don't throw over our high-minded principles the moment things get rough.

Many of the people at the prison in question were never tried nor convicted. A fair number were civilians. And even for those who were guilty, nothing, and I mean nothing, justifies what was done in our name. There will be serious, long-term consequences for us all.

American civilization is supposed to be better than a petty, vengeful, mindless mob. We have to be; otherwise, this country is no longer worth fighting for.