posted on May 5, 2004 11:07:08 PM new
What do you think? With all of the reports that he knew of the investigation but ignored the reports and kept the White House and Congress in the dark, should Rumsfield step down or be taken out of the picture?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 5, 2004 11:07 PM ]
posted on May 6, 2004 05:27:01 AM new
What does this have to do with anti-american feelings?
Now we all see how you treat your country when it has been good to you and all that you have gained here.
Why do people feel the need to bite the hand that feeds them? Is gratitude and respect long dead?
Love of ones country in time of strife sold to the highest bidder? Hatred of one man so much that they would give everything else away?
I asked a question in another thread, you seem to be avoiding it for some reason...
Possibly because the answer will shed some light on the reason these threads are popping up?
Oh in answer to your question here. NO
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 6, 2004 07:12:40 AM new
Rumsfield and Powell should both go, as well as Karl Rove. But why bother -- they'll all be gone after the next election.
posted on May 6, 2004 07:33:37 AM new
LOL don't you wish reamond...
Do I think some changes should be made in President Bush's next cabinet, yes I do.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 6, 2004 09:41:01 AM new
They should all resign...Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft Rove and Rice. They have done nothing but disgrace this country.
posted on May 6, 2004 10:08:32 AM new
Hey Twelve - Stick you anti american crap up your as* dearheart. I asked a perfectly legitimate question to spark debate after watching that exact issue being debated on CNN last night.
I guess we have a more than aa few anti american congressmen and a few military generals as well because I have seen at least five of these calling for his resignation since his lack of action has been a big issue in this controversy. Hell, even your hero Bush called him to the mat on his behavior in this situation... was he biting the hand that feeds him too?
What was your question Twelve, I'll be happy to answer it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 6, 2004 11:22:01 AM new
I think we'll need to wait until an investigation into the whole thing occures. Not jump to conclusions about exactly what has been 'kept from us'.....as first glances aren't always the correct ones.
I do agree with Senator Joe Lieberman's take on this though. [Last paragraph of this very level-headed article].
posted on May 6, 2004 11:25:53 AM new
The above mentioned Lieberman quote:
But the political class would do well to heed Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who said yesterday that "this immoral behavior in no way eliminates the justice of our cause in Iraq."
posted on May 8, 2004 12:26:51 AM new
I know helen frowns upon me 'sneaking' in after she's gone to bed.... but.....
Last Update: Saturday, May 8, 2004. 10:43am (AEST)
Rumsfeld should not resign:
US poll
Americans are dismayed at the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by United States troops, but most see the incidents as isolated and do not think Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be sacked, according to a poll.
The ABC/Washington Post poll found respondents divided almost evenly - 44 per cent to 43 per cent - on whether President George W Bush's administration sought at first to investigate the scandal or to cover it up.
Three-quarters of those questioned said they were following the story closely, an attention level the pollsters said was usually reserved for some of the most gripping news events.
Two-thirds thought criminal charges should be levelled against the soldiers involved in the abuse, but just 54 per cent said punishment should go up the chain of command to higher level officers who allowed a breakdown in training and discipline.
Overall, only 20 per cent thought Mr Rumsfeld should resign while 69 per cent thought he should remain in the cabinet.
Broken down by party, 58 per cent of Democrats, 82 per cent of Republicans and 73 per cent of independents thought Mr Rumsfeld should stay.
Assessments of President Bush's handling of the scandal were generally more positive than negative - 48 per cent approved, 35 per cent disapproved and 17 had no opinion.
On the question of whether the abuse was isolated, 62 per cent said 'yes', 31 per cent said 'no'.
posted on May 8, 2004 01:06:38 AM new
That is interesting Linda - They did a poll here in San Diego, an undeniable military town and the the numbers were 45 for resignation, 55 against. Problem is that if the other images come out and the controversy swells as even Runsfeld himself said it would in that case, I think it is going to be neccesary in order to put the best face on the situation now and on ones in the future.
I think that the scope of this and the more that comes out the more it is beginning to look that this was not a few isolated incidents but rather a pattern of behavior in this institution the worse it looks for our military and Runsfield is becoming to closely connected to it in the media and in the eyes of the public.
If the militaary and the country at large is going to be able to move past this, they are going to have to put a new face on the military.
In terms of PR which is what this is all going to be about in the coming months, the best thing that the Bush administration could do would be to have Rumsfeld step down and put Powell in his place thru the end of this adninistration.
Backing Rumsfeld for the long haul would be a huge strategic error. He's a monsterously large target for attack due to his inaction when it came to following up on the reports and Bushs claims that he was kept in the dark and Bush backing someone that kept him in the dark in a matter as important as this was a bad move.
If I were Bush - I would be telling Rumsfeld to quietly start making plans to move on, that he is around only until that other shoe (the additional pics and video) falls at which point his last duty is going to be to "fall on his sword". Once everything is out there, the new guy (Hopefully Powell) becomes the face and the voice of the military and ensures everyone that through investigations will be done. The fact that Powell is someone that republicans, democrats, and most of the world as a whole sees as being an honorable man will help the situation greatly.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 8, 2004 01:15:38 AM new
fenix, I agree with you in the most part, except that It should be after the election that President Bush should replace Rumsfeld, I also think that Colin Powell would make a good defense secretary, but don't think he would accept it, it would be a step down....
When President Bush wins reelection, Rumsfeld can just step down and retire...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 8, 2004 01:35:35 AM new
Twelve - I thik that Rumsfeld will be a huge albatross during election season. The point is to repair the PR problem fast.
As for Powell. I think that because he has stated that he does not wish to serve out another term and because of his military history, he probably would take it as something that is in the best interest of the country and the military. Besides, he's buried now. Going in and doing a six month rehabilitation on the image of the military would be a major high note for him to retire on.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 8, 2004 01:48:46 AM new
I disagree. We forget that Rumsfeld miraculously took Afghanistan with just a few green berets. The Soviet Army lost 15,000 troops in Afghanistan.
The invasion of Iraq was a brilliant success, even with only 2/3 of the planned invasion force.
They made some mistakes with the occupation and they underestimated the insurgency but hindsight is 20/20 and nobody's perfect.
Rumsfeld is bold and forward thinking. Powell is way too cautious and conventional for the War on Terror.
The one who should be canned is Powell (for being too liberal) and replaced with Rudy Guiliani.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on May 8, 2004 02:12:33 AM new
EAG - do you really think that if pictures come out US miltary raping a teenage girl that anyone is going to be thinking about Afganistan?
As a democrat that wants to see Bush out of office - I think that keeping Rumsfeld will be a huge advatage in achieving that goal. As an American that would like to see our image on a global level rehabilitated as quickly and efficiently as possible, he needs to go.
This is a man that said that he has been aware for 4 months of the situation but has not bothered to read a month old report or even recognized what a disaster this was going to be when it comes out. Leaving that report on his desk unread is like not opening your phone bill because you don't want to deal with it and hope it will go away. Not informing the president of the seriousness showed a lack of good judgement and after four months of "investigation" not being able to answer the simple question of who was in charge at the prison made him look either monumentally stupid or blatantly dishonest. Of course starting that answer with the stammering about something they forgot to bring with them.... You testified before congress and forgot to bring your homework? WOW!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 8, 2004 07:34:47 AM new
Rumsfeld's decision to use private contractors for interrogation and his decision to illegally place the MPs under the command of military intelligence are violations of Geneva. Bush is directly responsible for these violations since it was his policy to set aside the Geneva convention and act only "as if" Geneva applied. That amounts to a violation of U.S. law since we are ratifying parties to the treaty
Rumsfeld should resign and Bush could be guilty of an impeachable offence.
posted on May 8, 2004 08:11:21 AM new
fenix - On the different polls....yes, I've said before that it depends on who's being polled....etc. Just gives a 'hint' of which way the wind's blowing.
----------------------
I watched the panel question Rumsfeld, on and off.
My take is he explained that the military was already investigating this back in January, disputing reports that the abuses had been ignored for four months.
He pointed out it was NOT the news media who 'broke' this story....this wasn't being 'hidden' it was already being dealt with. He also stated we're likely to see more pictures/hear of more cases in the future.
He's a rough ol' goat who will 'fall on the sword' if he feels it would be in this President's best interest. He's weathered many issues in the past and come out of it without resigning. I would be surprised if he does.
But like with most things as time passes and new facts come out people become less enraged and the subject changes to something else. While I know those opposing Bush hopes it doesn't.....time will tell.
On the reading of the report issue....my take is this man has how many people working under him?? Thousands.... he can't read each and every report that comes over his desk. Like many good managers he relies on those who work for him to inform him of what's happening in each area of his responsibilities [each department]. If he read all reports that come over his desk....he'd never do anything else.
posted on May 8, 2004 09:32:24 AM new
::My take is he explained that the military was already investigating this back in January, disputing reports that the abuses had been ignored for four months. ::
That was exactly what he said. How silly did it then look when he was unable to answer the most basic of questions... Who was in charge of these people? Four months of investigation and they don't seem to have yet figured out what the chain of command in a single prison is... Kind of makes you wonder just how much investigating has been done.
:: On the reading of the report issue....my take is this man has how many people working under him?? ::
Linda, quite frankly, that is an excuse and a bad one.. He was told in January there were allegation of physical and sexual abuse of detainees/ That is a powder keg issue. Three months later he receives the report. That's one you read. Period. In fact, that is an issue that he should have requested regular briefings on because that is something that can blow up on two fronts. It becomes a huge political problem at home and it becomes a security issue in Iraq putting troops in greater harms way from the fall out of the peoples rage. Monumentally bad judgment involved in not reading that one.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 8, 2004 09:32 AM ]
posted on May 8, 2004 09:35:10 AM new
The military was investigating in Jan only after soldiers began to come forward with pictures. The Red Cross had complained before that and was ignored.
Rumsfeld also asked the press to withhold the images until we could extract our military from Fallujah and elsewhere. They were afraid what the rest of the population would do when the images hit.
It was a laugh when Rumsfeld went on to claim that the difference between our torture and Saddam's is that we are an "open" society and Saddam's was not. We expose and correct our mistakes. That's why we have a Vice President's secret policy meetings case in the Supreme Court right now.
It is also almost a forgone conclusion that officers and higher were in on the tortures going on. There is no way the "underlings" would be taking pictures and trading them with other prison guards if the officers didn't know what was going on.
The only reason Rumsfeld is "sorry" is because the situation got exposed.
And there is worse yet to come according to Rumsfeld and others, including rape and murder.
What we have done to the Iraqi people is a disgrace. We have replaced one evil dictator with another.
We are courting further tragedy in Iraq. We lied to go in and we have no moral reason to be there now.
We need new leadership in the White House to replace the military deserter there now.
posted on May 8, 2004 10:42:03 AM new
Removing Rumsfeld now, before a thourough investigation would be a mistake.
If all accusations are proven true then it may make good politics to offer him up as a sacrifice to the cause...
Those soldiers claiming orders are not going to get away with it and as long as we do not hide their punishment from the rest of the world, then that should help matters.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 8, 2004 10:59:50 AM newRumsfeld also asked the press to withhold the images until we could extract our military from Fallujah and elsewhere. They were afraid what the rest of the population would do when the images hit.
They were trying to protect our soldiers on the ground.....and I agree they should have.
The reported wrong doing was brought forth....and was dealt with. Not like it wasn't shoved under the table and ignored. Investigations take a little time....as we all know. The 9-11 commission hearing are a good example. We're still trying to find out who did what...who didn't do what...and when.
posted on May 8, 2004 11:35:40 AM new
Linda - how in the world can you say it was dealt with when no one seems to know who the commanding officer was and charges were brought on the woman in many of the pictures only after they were made public despite the fact that the military knew of them months ago. Come on Linda. Why are you defending points that even the officials you support don't?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 8, 2004 12:07:11 PM new
[i]how in the world can you say it was dealt with when no one seems to know who the commanding officer was and [b]charges were brought on the woman in many of the pictures only after they were made public[b].
Because the investigation was completed and it was decided the allegations proved her actions needed to be against policy. Assumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
These incidents were reported to have occurred in Nov.-Dec. of last year. The soldier who then made the report of these happenings reported them in Jan. From Jan on the allegations WERE being investigated.
Because they were not made known to the general public....does not discount the fact they WERE being investigated.
Investigations take a while. We're in the middle of a war [combat] over there....soldiers aren't sitting around with nothing to do. Many important issues to be dealt with. All arrested have to be triaged to see if they're common criminals....working for our enemies - shooting at our troops...or just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
posted on May 8, 2004 01:15:37 PM newTimeline: Iraq Prison Abuse Scandal
Thursday, May 06, 2004
The following is a list of important dates in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal:
2003
? June 30: Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski named commander of all military prisons in Iraq.
? Aug. 31-Sept. 9: A team of counter-terrorism experts investigating prisoner interrogations in Iraq concludes that although the prisons should provide a "safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence, ? it is essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees."
? October: The 372nd Military Police Company ordered to guard Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
? Oct. 13-Nov. 6: A team of military police and legal and medical experts reviews the prison system in Iraq; it concludes that there are possible manpower, training and human rights problems that should be addressed immediately.
2004
? Jan. 13: A Member of the 800th Military Police Brigade tells superiors about prison abuses, and Pentagon officials are informed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is told a day or so later. Shortly afterward, Rumsfeld tells Bush.
? Jan. 14: U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, opens criminal investigation of abuses.
? Jan. 16: U.S. Central Command announces that an investigation of prison abuses is underway.
? Jan. 17: Sanchez formally advises Karpinski that there are serious deficiencies in her command and that the performance reflects a lack of leadership. Karpinski is later suspended from duty.
? Jan. 19: Sanchez asks for a high-level review of prison procedures.
? Jan. 24: Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, U.S. ground forces commander in Iraq, is directed to conduct the review.
? Jan. 31: Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba is named chief investigator on the review.
? Feb. 2: Taguba and his team visit Abu Ghraib.
? March 3: Taguba's preliminary findings are presented to McKiernan; they point to members of the 372nd Military Police Company and intelligence operatives as the abusers.
? March 13: The Army's Criminal Investigation Division charges six soldiers with counts ranging from conspiracy to indecent acts.
? April 6: McKiernan approves some report recommendations, including letters of reprimand for six MPs and noncommissioned officers; two are relieved of duties.
? April 28: "60 Minutes II" shows photographs of prisoners forced to engage in simulated sex acts.
? May 3: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) asks Pentagon officials to testify before his committee the next day.
? May 4: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says those responsible will be brought to justice and widens investigations of prisons outside Iraq and Afghanistan. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice tells the Arab world that the abuses will be investigated and the perpetrators punished. Army officials give Senate committee a private briefing.
? May 5: President Bush appears on two Arab television channels, saying those responsible for the abuses will be brought to justice. Rumsfeld agrees to testify before the Senate committee on May 7.
posted on May 8, 2004 01:23:53 PM new
This article probably most addresses how I see this WHOLE situation - we currently face. I'd say I agree with about
95% of what it states.
posted on May 8, 2004 01:35:19 PM new
A few points should be emphasized:
* The overwhelming majority of inmates at the Abu Ghriab prison were suspected of having participated in or having knowledge of attacks against U.S. soldiers. Very few of the prisoners were common street criminals.
* The photographs of prisoners being abused were taken at a cellblock known as "The Hard Site," where the worst and most dangerous were being detained.
* To date, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the prisoners depicted in humiliating photos suffered anything more than embarrassment.
* At least two of the abused prisoners have embarked on a whirlwind tour of media interviews. And one even says he'd like to come to live in the homeland of his "torturers," the good old USA.
* None of the photos released to the media so far show anything like what has been alleged in anti-Bush administration media reports, which have ballyhooed allegations of forcible sodomy and even murder with little evidence to back the claims up.
* The murder charges:
Two allegations of murder have been reported so far.
The first is apparently based on an incident detailed in the Taguba report, which chronicles a prison riot during which suspected terrorists hurled rocks at U.S. military guards.
One soldier drew his weapon and fired in what appears to be an act of self defense, killing a suspected terrorist inmate. The soldier was charged with using excessive force and was dismissed with what was described in press accounts as "a less than honorable discharge."
* The other charge of murder refers to an Iraqi detainee who reportedly died after being grilled by a CIA interrogator. No further details of this case have been made public, including what type of intelligence the suspect was believed to be withholding or whether there was any provocation.
* The Taguba report also details several prison uprisings by suspected terrorists, some of whom had obtained weapons from Iraqi guards recruited by U.S. authorities. U.S. guards were repeatedly injured in these altercations, with at least one shootout in a jail cell reported. [Under these circumstances, humiliation and intimidation tactics might have been employed to keep suspected terrorist inmates too disoriented and demoralized to mount more prison attacks].
* It's worth reminding Americans about the case of Col. Alan West, who foiled a terrorist attack against his unit by extracting critical intelligence from an Iraqi detainee by firing his weapon into the air during an interrogation. Because Col. West exercised the good judgment to bend the rules of the Geneva Convention, countless U.S. soldiers in his unit - not to mention the Iraqi detainee - are alive today.
* It's also worth reminding Americans about the circumstances of the death of CIA interrogator Johnny 'Mike' Spann, the first casualty in the U.S.'s counterattack in the war on terror. Spann was killed when al Qaida prisoners jumped him and his partner during an interrogation session in Afghanistan.
* The only rape reported in any detail so far was allegedly committed by an Iraqi jail guard at Abu Ghraib who was recruited as part of the Iraqicization of the occupation. According to NBC's Jim Miklasewski, this Iraqi guard may have raped several female prisoners and perhaps even a young male detainee.
* The Taguba report includes an allegation of sodomy with a broomstick. This, along with most of the rest of the more lurid allegations being touted as gospel by the big media, is in fact based on the account of a suspected terrorist detainee. To date, no photographs have emerged to substantiate the charge, no eyewitnesses have gone public to corroborate the charge and no U.S. soldiers have confessed to committing the crime.
One wonders what prison inmates in America - or anywhere else for that matter - would say about their jailers if asked if they'd been abused.
* For some of the more partisan Democrats currently calling for Rumsfeld's head, the Bush administration would do well to remind the country that more innocents died at Waco than at Abu Ghriab - and nobody from the Clinton administration resigned back then. In fact, there was hardly any outrage whatsoever over what remains the worst law enforcement debacle in U.S. history.
The most problematic allegation by far is that GIs charged with committing the abuse were ordered to do so by military intelligence to "soften-up" detainees in advance of interrogations.
--------------------
posted on May 8, 2004 02:08:36 PM new
Linda - congrats- I give up. You hopelessly blindly devoted to your president, even to the point where you will support events that he does not support in order to support him which makes no sense to me.
The fact that you would actually cut paste and bold some of the statements that you hand picked in your last post makes me really wonder.
Example 1) To date, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the prisoners depicted in humiliating photos suffered anything more than embarrassment.
In our country, we call that sexual assault and it's a felony.
Example 2) None of the photos released to the media so far show anything like what has been alleged in anti-Bush administration media reports, which have ballyhooed allegations of forcible sodomy and even murder with little evidence to back the claims up.
In this case, both you and the author of your article are ignorant of facts because it was military officals that released that information regarding the images that they have that have not yet shown up in the press. Unless of course you now consider the military to be anti-Bush.
I'm not sure which I found more disgusting - the actions or or the pathetic attempts to somehow justify them.
Did you ever imagine that your support for your pressident would have you trying to justify rape, sexual assault and murder Linda? Have you noticed that in fact the only people trying to support these actions are right wing press? Aren't you at least a little curious as to why the right wing is trying so hard to jfind justification for something that not even the military or Bush administration support.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 8, 2004 02:09:32 PM new"* To date, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the prisoners depicted in humiliating photos suffered anything more than embarrassment."
How sick of a statement is this? It's like saying that the men who rape women or molest children should only be charged with "embarrassing someone". This kind of sexual abuse causes psychological damage, sometimes long term. What's embarrassing is trying to justify this behaviour as simple humiliation. Very sick.
