A few days ago a friend expressed the following sentiment via a raging e-mail:

We have allowed this to happen. We are responsible. These people are our elected officials. They represent us. They work for us, as us. We committed those abuses. We permitted and approved that treatment.

I totally agree insofar as we need to be held accountable for our actions (or lack thereof) in the voting booth. On the other hand, inferring this kind of direct association with criminality is exactly what terrorists do when they target civilians of democratic nations. Speaking of which, I can't resist quoting a little Bill O'Reilly at this point:

Remember the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler, the Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians but if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period.

Bill Moyers responded thusly:

It would be like punishing the inmates of Auschwitz and Buchenwald with further starvation and humiliation because they did not rise up against their Nazi guards.

So herein is the dilemma that makes this argument concomitantly compelling and revolting. When addressing failures within our own system (i.e. Bush), it serves our interests to invoke a shamed outrage at our inattention in an attempt to galvanize opposition; the same logic when applied externally, however, condemns innocent bystanders to suffer the self-righteous (and sometimes fatal) tantrums of foreign powers. If we can rise up and defeat our dunderheaded leadership, great. If we cannot – and the election in November condemns us to four more years of winter – I prefer to think of myself as not responsible in any way for this administration: they don't reflect the America I know – to steal a phrase.