Well, we're not sure of the scope of the abuses. We're not sure how far up the ladder responsibility goes. But we are sure of this:

Bush hasn't apologized yet.

For example, the BBC, hints offhandedly:

President Bush was not asked to apologise during the 10-minute interview for the al-Hurra network.

Wow. More coverage of non-events. Did we also notice he wasn't dressed in the newest spring fashions? Why would a reporter notice something didn't happen, except as a way of inserting the reporter's own opinion into the piece? Perhaps the BBC reporter is frustrated by this glaring omission on the part of the al-Hurra reporter.

CNN is also demanding an apology from Bush. For example, Lou Dobbs demands one in a recent editorial.

And I'm watching Wolf Blitzer lead a reporter who's covering the story. Wolf mentions that Bush is showing sympathy, admitting shame, promising investgations and justice, "but he stopped just short of an apology. Is that the sense you got as well?"

Why, yes of course, she did. Imagine that. Wolf probes a reporter for her feelings about Bush's speech, and -- amazingly -- her feelings exactly echo Wolf's query and, by coincidence!, Lou Dobb's last editorial.

I love watching reporters interview each other about their feelings, and package it as news.

Now Wolf is interviewing some guy named Pachani, who is describing the situation. Wolf cuts him off to tell him that Bush didn't apologize, telling him "Bush seemed to stop short of an apology." Wolf asks didn't he certainly agree that Bush should have apologized.

Pachani's first response is, sensibly "He cannot take responsibility of course..." but later admits that an apology could be politically useful. The caption beneath Pachani's face is set to "Pachani: Bush apology would have been useful" rather than "Pachani: Bush cannot take responsibility."

Wolf will continue interviewing each new person in this fashion.

Wolf is not reporting the news here. He's attempting to create it.

And by another amazing co-incidence, the faceless voice which does the summaries also has the same opinion! When covering Rumsfeld, we only learn that Rumsfeld hasn't acted contrite or apologized. We don't learn what he did say. Not worth mentioning, apparently. Much less whether we have evidence he knew, authorized, or participated.

The faceless voice also tells us Bush hasn't apologized, using "Kennedy apologized for the Bay of Pigs invasion!" to bolster it's demands.

Let's think about that argument.

First, Kennedy ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion. It was, in fact, undertaken with his direct authorization. At this point in time, we have no similar evidence that Bush ordered those at Abu Ghraib to pose the prisoners nude in ridiculous positions and photograph them. Unless or until new evidence comes to light, the two situations are not similar in this regard. But the choice tells us CNN thinks they are -- they see Bush's culpability for prison abuses as identical Kennedy's direct order to invade Cuba. Or wants us to think so, anyway.

Second, the argument CNN uses is factually false anyway. Kennedy did not apologize after Bay of Pigs (even though he should have):

"I'm the responsible officer of the government," John F. Kennedy said somberly after the Bay of Pigs debacle.

His poll numbers immediately shot up 11 points.

Kennedy never uttered the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize." Nonetheless, Americans, apparently moved by the young president's demonstration of humility and remorse, only warmed to him as a result of his public utterance of failure.

Kennedy did not apologize. He uttered a factually true statement about his role and left it to the listener to interpolate. And, unlike Bush, I'm sure Kennedy's statement got positive press coverage.

In another publication, I read that people were demonstrating outside the Abu Ghraib prison, allegedly "demanding an apology".

But even CNN's reporting contradicted this characterization, revealing that those gathered were from a "Muslim's scholar society" (pronounced Taliban) and demanded (a) a trial for the guards who did it, and (b) red cross oversight and visits from lawyers. I never heard a quote which showed these people wanted an apology from President Bush.

In other words, it looks like that publication was ignoring the real news in order to put it's own words and agenda into the demonstrators' mouths.

Overall, as far as I can tell, this charge that "Bush didn't apologize", which seems to the the core of CNN's coverage, has originated from within the media itself -- I've seen no reporting that shows anyone relevant to the situation is demanding such an apology from Bush!

What happened in Abu Ghraib is terrible. Trials are warranted. If those doing these things reveal this was a policy which came down from higher up, then we certainly need to look into that as well.

But I'm not interested in CNN's spin on the matter. I don't care to hear Wolf Blitzer's endless complaints about Bush, especially without any corresponding evidence of Bush's culpability. I want to hear what Bush and Rumsfeld did say, not what some faceless voice is concerned they didn't say. I want to hear what the demonstrators in front of Abu Ghraib are demanding, not what the media thinks they should be demanding. I want to hear what Pachani thinks is important, not his reaction Wolf's "don't you think" leading questions.

The press knows there's no proof (yet) that people at the top of the Bush administration were at fault here. And the press knows that Bush doesn't accept responsibility for things he hasn't done wrong.

Given all that, the press focuses on whether or not Bush apologized. As with the Clarke affair, it's a damned if you do/don't strategy: If Bush says he's responsible, then they'll use that against him in his campaign: "Bush admits responsibility for Abu Ghraib abuses!" If not, the headline can be "Bush will not admit reponsibilty for abuses!"

That's certainly a good (though dishonest) partisan strategy. But my point is that such strategy should be left to the well-funded folks at MoveOn.org, or the Kerry camp. The fact that CNN openly and obviously engages in it, coordinated across reporters and commentators, dispells any pretense at neutrality or nonpartisanship on their part.

And the news suffers, since all this is done at the expense of actually informing us about who is at fault, what Rumsfeld did say, what the evidence is, and how it really is playing in Iraq.

If you think I'm kidding or exaggerating ask yourself one question: Given that there are similar charges against British soldiers, then why isn't the press pushing for an identical admission of guilt and apology from Prime Minister Tony Blair?

The difference should tell you something.