Undeniably, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib by at least seven US soldiers is wrong and disgusting. The abusers must be punished to the full extend of the law and the US must provide compensation to those Iraqis abused.

The US president, George Bush has repeatedly expressed sorry about the abuse and so did the US secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld. “I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families,” said Bush On Thursday, May 6, 2004, standing in the Rose Garden alongside the King of Jordan, Abdullah who visited Washington.

If there is anything good of this horrible abuse is it was disclosed before it becomes widespread. Moreover, that the abuse has now become public information, the pressure to further disclose the abusive practices fully will be amounting. This is of course just a complete opposite of what many Iraqis had suffered before in that ghostly prison.  The Abu Ghraib is the prison where the old Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein used to torture Iraqis. A writer, Misa Keilani, the Jordan Times wrote: "We in the Arab world did know what was going on in Abu Ghraib when Saddam was in power: summary executions, dismemberment and torture of the worst kind we ever heard of in modern times. It is true that few in the Arab world talked about it and scant attention was given to international organizations' criticism of the gross violations of human rights in Iraq while Saddam was in power."

On Friday, May 06, 2004, the Capitol Hill was busy almost the whole day when Rumsfeld testified under oath before the Senate Armed Services Committee and later to the House Armed Services Committee. But what kind of game is being played in Washington and what were the abusive practices happening in the Abu Ghraib prison are not always connected with each other. It looks as if they are though. After all, almost all Congressmen and Senators condemn the abuse. But let’s not be fooled by politicians as James Clark once said, “A politician thinks of the next election”. This is an election season and in such season, all that matters to politicians, almost all politicians, is power – how to get elected or re-elected.

And the abuse in Abu Ghraib is no exception. The Democrats have already smelt blood. Bush and the Republicans look like wounded opponents. It’s the best time to play politics – to the fullest if possible. Just like in boxing, when there is a blood at the nose of your opponent, all you need to do is to throw a few punches to that part of the face.

Don’t get me wrong. I admire the leaderships of F.D. Roosevelt and J.F. Kennedy, two of the past US President from the Democratic Party. And in 1992 and 1996, while Bush Sr. and Dole were decent and honorable figures, I would like the Democratic Party to win the White House.  In 2000, I found Al Gore to be less interesting compared to John McCain and I didn’t think that Bush could win the election. So, the Democratic Party was not really a bad party, at least to me.

Not now, however. Some politicians in the Party, especially the most partisan ones such as Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia; Congressmen Charles Rangel of New York, are displaying a truly bad side of the bad perception about politics. Senator Byrd stated in May 1 that the war in Iraq is “pointless”.  How can it be that removing a brutal dictator is “pointless”? If he said that there were other ways (options) other than war, then it is entirely a legitimate point. Charles Rangel continues to claim that Bush and the Republicans stole the 2000 election despite the study conducted by several Newspapers (USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder) show that Bush prevailed by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin had the recount was done. Senator Kennedy said that the Iraq war as a “fraud” and “cooked up” in Texas only for a political reason:  the GOP's desire to seize control of both houses of Congress in 2002. The Senator did not provide any proof to back up his accusation.

The attacks of the Democratic Party’s and the left-wing of the liberal camp on the Republican and the Conservatives are sometimes beyond my comprehension that it made me wonder whether I am living in a deep-divided nation. Ted Rall, the left-wing cartoonist, said that Bush is evil who belongs to the camp of Hitler and Stalin. Various pamphlets and statements during the war protest are similar to this. And during the primary election of the Democratic Party, I have never seen any enlightening and challenging policy from any of the candidates except a Bush bashing theme. Their common denominator is being anti-Bush as Howard Dean once reminded them, the nine presidential candidates in February, “Our enemy is George Bush”. Well, I though the enemy of presidential candidates is the condition: the crime rates, poverty and the big inequality among the low-middle-high income people. But I was wrong.

I am all for free speech. But also, I am for a politics of persuasion and ideas, not a politics of accusation and slander. No less important, I am also for a politics of integrity. And before jumping to any conclusion of my intention, this is not to defend the Republicans and Bush. But I simply want to stress the importance of two words that are so frequently, if not always, missing from public debates both among politicians and the folks, including the pundits and analysts. The words are: proof and integrity. If you accuse someone of something, you better provide a solid proof. This should apply in everywhere and to everyone in the world, from Washington to Jakarta, and from politicians to a regular individual. And if you deeply concern of something and this something has something to do with others, you better speak not exclusively for your own good, but also for the entire people in your community. Put simply, a man with integrity does not only think about himself and his exclusive group, but also think about all.

So, it is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to express the disagreement, both in the terms of content and manner. Especially politicians, they must be capable of showing proof/evidence and integrity. A number of senior politicians from the Democrats have not been able to show just that.  Feeling is one thing, rational thinking is quite another. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, commenting about the abuse said, that Bush “must demand the resignations for whoever is involved in this policy, and that includes Lord God Almighty himself.” Imagine if such words were uttered by a politician in Indonesia when commenting about the country military’s abuse in the East Timor. That would offend many religious believers because as if it suggests that God instructs people to torture others. That is wrong.

And the Democrats’ reactions to the abuse in Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib are focusing on person than policy. They are desperately forcing Rumsfeld to resign which will be stronger as more disgusting photos from Iraq will be coming out to public. And soon, they will be chorusing that the President should resign, too. The Democratic Party’s solution to the abuse and to almost everything I have seen during the last three years is politics. “Democratic Party,” as Zell Miller, the long-time Democrat, the current Senator from Georgia, and who was the staunch supporter of Clinton, wrote “is national party no more.”  Ironically, those who were frantically against the war in Iraq and who care less of Saddam’s torture squads are those who are so fuming about the abuse. But it seems there is a very thin line between fuming about it and playing politics.

Today, Indonesia has 24 four political parties. For Indonesian politics to be more effective, this number must decrease in the future elections. But we have to avoid one thing: a two-major party system like in the US. A three-party system will be more superior. As we have seen, the two-major party system only produces politicians whose main job is to destroy the reputation of the others.