Rumsfeldowitz, Inc Must Go

[Gary Sisco]

Headline: Pressure rises on Bush team
Byline: Linda Feldmann and Faye Bowers Staff writers of The Christian
Date: 05/07/2004

(WASHINGTON)As the scandal over American abuse of Iraqi prisoners deepens, the
White House is caught in an unusual snapshot of its own: an image of
disarray and dysfunction.

Normally noted for its efficient corporate-style management, and an
ability to stay "on message" and ahead of the curve on bad news, the
Bush administration is struggling to contain the fallout from the
scandal. The revelation by unnamed senior White House officials,
reportedly authorized to make such statements to the media, that
President Bush had reprimanded Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
over his handling of the abuse reports represents a rare display of
displeasure with an inner Cabinet member - and fuels speculation that
Secretary Rumsfeld could lose his job.

Bush was reportedly upset that he learned of the extent of the prisoner
abuses and saw the incriminating photographs by watching "60 Minutes
II" last week, with no advance warning. He is also reported to be upset
with Rumsfeld that the Pentagon had not acted on recommendations that
Iraqi prison conditions be improved. All eyes will be on Rumsfeld
Saturday when he testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Amid a major damage-control effort - as additional photos of abuse have
come to light, obtained by The Washington Post - Bush is caught in a
political bind, analysts say.

"Somebody at the top has to be held accountable for these abuses," says
John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.
"The problem the president faces is it would be difficult for him
politically to fire Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, or
even General Myers [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]."

The "great fear is that people at the higher levels will start turning
on each other," Dr. Mearsheimer says. "You see evidence of that
happening with Colin Powell. The president runs the danger that if he
fires Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld might turn on him." Bush's hope, he adds, is
that by giving Rumsfeld a slap on the wrist, he will placate the
country.

Secretary of State Powell, whose skeptical view of the Iraq operation
has been long known, went off the reservation a bit Wednesday night,
when he raised the specter of the My Lai massacre - which produced the
most notorious of the Vietnam War's horrific images - in an interview
on "Larry King Live." He said: "In war, these sorts of horrible things
happen every now and again, but they're still to be deplored."

The White House also sent mixed messages about whether the president
should apologize for the abuses, in the spirit of President Truman's
"buck stops here" desk sign. In appearances on Arab TV Wednesday, Bush
stopped short of a full apology, but Press Secretary Scott McClellan
later said the president was sorry for what had happened. National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of State Richard
Armitage both offered apologies on Arab TV. Rumsfeld offered a
semi-apology on US TV Wednesday.

But not only does the Bush administration face the need for major
damage control abroad, it must address the blow to morale at the
Pentagon itself, say former senior military officials.

"There had to be a permissive culture here that goes all the way up to
the top," says retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former director of
central intelligence.

"Is a general responsible for a private who does something wrong?" he
asks. "Probably not. But in this case, what I'm suggesting is that it
was the atmosphere of the command that let this happen, and it was so
gross that the assignment of responsibility to a very high level is
justified. The president doesn't need to wait for a court martial to do
anything."

It has become increasingly clear "just how complicit the entire chain
of command must have been in acts of daily coercion," says Larry
Seaquist, a former Navy warship captain and Pentagon strategist. "Our
military apparatus is broken, perhaps worse than it was coming out of
Vietnam."

Still, Bush would probably be loath to fire top Pentagon brass at an
especially delicate moment in the Iraq occupation, less than two months
away from planned turnover of control of the nation to Iraqis.

Bush is also locked in a close reelection battle, and would not want to
fuel talk of disarray by firing top military officials - though the
Nov. 2 election is still several political lifetimes away, and a
shakeup might actually create a positive sense of new beginning.

So far, there is no evidence that the Iraqi abuse scandal has hurt
Bush's reelection chances, though polls show a rise in the percentage
of Americans who see the nation on the "wrong track" - now 50 percent
versus 33 percent who say the US is on the right track. The new Gallup
Poll shows 62 percent of Americans dissatisfied with the country's
direction. One point of interest will be whether Republican senators
call on Rumsfeld to resign.

(c) Copyright 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/sen...01s01-woiq.txt

*************************************

Now's the moment of truth. This is where we will find out if there is any honor left in the five service's commands, Congress, and the rest of this gang, er, administration. Anyone wanna bet how it goes?

Either people are responsible for their jobs or they're not. If no one's responsible, then the US military has become a literal rogue gang, armed as a superpower, with no allegiance to human decency, never mind their own histories as institutions.

If Bush fires Rumsfeld -- the only honorable thing to do -- there is no compromise -- I will vote for the punk himself, come November, because he will have proven himself capable of responsible command apart from his own personal ambitions. If not, I'll not be surprised, as he's never held himself accountable to anything else, nor has any of his kind. Nevertheless, if he does the right thing this once, I swear on my father's grave that I'll vote for him for reelection.

I will even forgive him for apparently not having read a newspaper since October, 2001, because the grave mistreatment and even wholesale murder of prisoners has been ongoing in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Iraq -- and it has all been being reported, in some detail, all along in both the major national presses and the major international ones as well. The Red Cross is hardly a radical organization (to anyone but Monte perhaps, and even he, I'll wager, is smart enough to know that).

[Pete C]

I'd hate to see them go. They're so representative of the administration.

[RBS]

Is it true that they knew about this MONTHS ago?!?

My take on it is this:

If you're going to start an ill-advised, unnecessary war based on flimsy evidence, you're not going to come out smelling like a rose no matter what you do.

And you can't tell me that Bush's handling of Guantanamo inmates and his flouting of international law hasn't helped create an atmosphere where these GIs thought they could get away with this kind of inhumanity.

[Gary Sisco]

Apparently, they *are* the administration.

As Woodward correctly points out in his book, Rumsfeld insisted on having -- and he received -- virtual total control of the Pentagon, which is to say, of the American military. Since he insisted on total control, he also has total responsibility. No way around it. The buck stops with him, since he didn't even alert his own boss to what he's known all along, and what the people have known all along, if they'd wanted to, since there's nothing in this "scandal" that hasn't been widely reported, for years. Finally, photos on the Holy TV, the only thing that apparently gets anyone's attention anymore, merely forced the issue. The print media have been on it all along.

[Gary Sisco]

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Abuse Of Prisoners In U.S. Military Custody
May 5, 2004

Mr. President, as an American, as a former prosecutor, as a United States Senator who has spoken out in defense of human rights wherever they are violated, and as the Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to promote respect for the rule of law in countries around the world, I was outraged and disgusted by the reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by United State military personnel and the civilian contractors working with them.

Not only has this caused serious harm, both physical and psychological, to the individuals who were subjected to this mistreatment, it has tarnished the reputation of all Americans and our Nation as a whole.

I have listened as top officials at the Department of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, and other Administration officials, have said they were “shocked” and “stunned” by these reports. And I have heard them, in a coordinated attempt at damage control, say that these were isolated incidents involving only a handful of individuals whose conduct, while reprehensible, should not be seen as indicative of a larger failure.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of American men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are as disgusted by these abhorrent acts as the rest of us. But I could not disagree more with those who would characterize these incidents as aberrations. While President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, Secretary Powell and Condoleezza Rice, may have been shocked by the photographs that have been on the front page of every newspaper in the world, they should not have been surprised by the revelations themselves. These types of abuses have been going on at U.S. military detention facilities for a long time, and the Administration has known about the incidents in Iraq for five months. This fact signals a failure of leadership at several levels.

The mistreatment of prisoners by the U.S. military in Iraq was not limited to the crimes that have come to light at the Abu Ghraib prison. Rather, there was, in the words of the U.S. Army’s own inquiry, a “systemic and illegal abuse of detainees.” It is revealing, and particularly disturbing, that the U.S. personnel involved conducted themselves so openly, even posing with the victims of their sadistic acts. They obviously felt they had no reason to believe that their superiors would be upset with their conduct. The brazenness of these acts, the reported role of U.S. intelligence officers in encouraging such treatment to “soften up” detainees for interrogations, combined with earlier reports of similar abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggests a much larger failure.

And let’s be clear. We are not talking only about the individuals who engaged in these abusive acts. We are talking about a failure of leadership by an Administration that, well before this latest scandal, had already severely damaged this Nation’s reputation and effectiveness in a war against terrorism that is increasingly perceived by Muslims around the world as a war against Islam itself. The growing anger and hostility toward our troops has been exploited by Saddam loyalists and extremists who answer to Iran’s ayatollahs. They have committed despicable acts of violence against Americans, including the desecration of corpses.

The acts described in the investigative report by Major General Antonio Taguba, including beatings, repeated sexual abuse and humiliation, and threats and simulation of rape and of torture by electric shock, violate the Geneva Conventions. They clearly contradict President Bush’s pledge on June 26, 2003, that the United States will neither “torture” terrorist suspects, nor use “cruel and unusual” treatment to interrogate them. They also contradict the more detailed policy on interrogations outlined in a June 25, 2003, letter to me by Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes.

Frankly, I regret to say that I was not among those who were shocked by these revelations. Revolted, yes. Shocked, I was not. I have been concerned, as have others, about ongoing reports of physical and psychological abuse and the denial of rights of detainees in U.S. military custody since September 11, 2001, not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

These abuses have been well documented by reputable human rights organizations, as well as by members of the press. Some of the cases involve allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Other cases involve allegations of the denial of due process, incommunicado detention without charge, and the refusal of access to attorneys.

So when I hear the National Security Advisor, or the Secretary of Defense, say they are determined to get to the bottom of this, I frankly have to wonder, especially as they have known about this for a long time. I first wrote to National Security Advisor Rice a year ago about reports of cruel and degrading treatment of Afghan detainees.

I have written several times to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense and to the Director of the CIA. I have sought answers to questions about policy, training, and accountability. Some of my questions have been answered; many have been ignored despite repeated requests.

Were Secretary Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice not aware of the press reports, the inquiries by Members of Congress, or the reports of human rights organizations? Or was the abuse of nameless, non-white Muslims suspected of being terrorists, regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent, simply a low priority until it became a public relations and foreign policy disaster?

Let me cite just a few, of many, examples:

On December 25, 2002, the Washington Post reported, “‘If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job,’ said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. ‘I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this.’”

Quote, “Bush Administration officials said the CIA, in practice, is using a narrow definition of what counts as ‘knowing’ that a suspect has been tortured. ‘If we’re not there in the room, who is to say?’ said one official conversant with recent reports . . . ”. Unquote.

One can only wonder if anyone would have been punished, or if we would have even heard about it, if the photographs of the abuses at Abu Ghraib had not been published.

On March 4, 2003, the New York Times described the treatment of Afghan prisoners at the Bagram Air Base after two young prisoners died in U.S. military custody. Their deaths were ruled homicides, but the investigations of those deaths have never been released. Other prisoners described being forced to stand naked in a cold room for 10 days without interruption, with their arms raised and chained to the ceiling and their swollen ankles shackled. They also said they were denied sleep for days and forced to wear hoods that cut off the supply of oxygen.

That same day, the Wall Street Journal reported that a U.S. law enforcement official said, “because the [Convention Against Torture] has no enforcement mechanism, as a practical matter, ‘you’re only limited by your imagination.’”

On March 9, 2003, the New York Times reported, “Intelligence officials . . . acknowledged that some suspects had been turned over to security services in countries known to employ torture.”

On June 2, 2003, when allegations of possible breaches of the Convention Against Torture surfaced, I wrote to National Security Advisor Rice, asking for assurance that the United States is complying with its obligations under the Convention. I received a response from General Counsel Haynes. His letter contained a welcome commitment by the Administration that it is the policy of the United States to comply with all of its legal obligations under the Convention.

Similarly, Senator Specter wrote to Dr. Rice asking for “clarification about numerous stories concerning alleged mistreatment of enemy combatants in U.S. custody,” and to explain how the Administration ensures that torture does not occur when it sends detainees to countries that are known to practice torture.

On September 9, 2003, I wrote to Mr. Haynes again for clarification on a number of points, such as how the Administration reconciled his statement of policy with reports that detainees were sent to countries where torture is practiced, and the reported use of interrogation techniques rising to or near the level of torture. After two months with no response, another letter, this one not from Mr. Haynes himself but from a subordinate, was delivered late at night on the eve of Mr. Haynes’ November 19, 2003, confirmation hearing for a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. That letter was totally unresponsive to my questions.

I also raised concerns when the case surfaced of a Canadian-Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, who was sent by U.S. authorities to Syria, where Arar says he was physically tortured. Syria has a well-documented history of torture. In fact, President Bush stated on November 7, 2003, that Syria has left “a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin” to its people.

I wrote to FBI Director Mueller on November 17, 2003, for more information on the case. Later that week, I wrote to Attorney General Ashcroft with additional questions. Neither of these letters from last year has been answered.

On January 6, 2004, Human Rights Watch wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld to express concern about the detention by U.S. forces in Iraq of innocent, close relatives of a wanted person in order to compel the person to surrender, which amounts to hostage-taking, classified as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

On January 13, 2004, the Asian Wall Street Journal reported that a suspect detained by U.S. forces in Iraq said that “he was ordered to stand upright until he collapsed after 13 hours,” and that interrogators, “burned his arm with a cigarette.”

On January 18, 2004, the Sunday Times of London reported that a detainee held by coalition forces in Iraq said that during his three months in detention he was, “beaten frequently, given shocks with an electric cattle prod and had one of his toenails [torn] off.”

Mr. President, throughout this period there were not only continuous press reports of abuses of Afghan, Iraqi, and other detainees in U.S. military custody. There were also repeated requests by human rights organizations, myself, and others, for clarification of the policies and procedures used in interrogations. What we got, it seems, were, at best, reassuring statements by officials in Washington that were repeatedly ignored in the field.

Several things bother me beyond the reports themselves. Not only is there a long pattern of abuse that has been documented. But with respect to the allegations at Abu Ghraib, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers knew of these incidents and for over a week they not only did not disclose them to the Congress or the American people, they urged CBS News not to broadcast the photographs.

Major General Taguba’s report was written three months ago, and as of yesterday Secretary Rumsfeld said he still had not read it through.

There has been an appalling lack of appreciation or concern for the seriousness and frequency of these incidents.

Mr. President, none of us believes that prisoners of war, some of whom are suspected of having killed or attempted to kill Americans, should be rewarded with comforts. Harsh treatment may, at times, be justified. But we also know that many of the people who have been detained, who have been depicted as terrorists and whose rights have been violated, have turned out to be innocent of any crime.

The use of torture or the inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners, whoever they are, is beneath this Nation. It is also illegal. That is the law whether U.S. military officers engage in such conduct themselves, or they turn over prisoners to the government agents of another country where torture is commonly used, in order to let others do the dirty work. It is also the law when contractors or subcontractors of the U.S. military are involved.

It undermines our reputation as a Nation of laws, it hurts our credibility with other nations, and it invites others to use similar tactics against our troops and other Americans.

Torture is routinely used today in dozens of countries. In fact, some of those who have complained the loudest about the abuses at Abu Ghraib are among the world’s worst violators of human rights. Their mistreatment of prisoners is flagrant, it is pervasive, and it is a matter of state policy.

So I am cognizant of the hypocrisy of some of those who have equated the U.S. military with Saddam Hussein’s regime, which tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that does not detract from the fact that the Bush Administration’s response to the pattern of reports of abuse of detainees has been woefully inadequate. It has been negligent, and innocent people have suffered and some quite possibly have died as a result. This negligence is anything but benign in the damage it threatens to our national security and foreign policy interests, at a particularly dangerous time.

What should be done? Human rights groups have suggested a number of important actions which I believe are long overdue. The Administration should:

-- Undertake an investigation of the interrogation practices wherever detainees are held around the world, whether the facilities are run by the U.S. military or the Central Intelligence Agency, and make the results public.

-- Prosecute any military or intelligence personnel found to have engaged in or encouraged any acts amounting to torture or inhuman treatment. Administrative penalties are inadequate. There needs to be a clear signal that these abuses will not be tolerated.

-- Ensure that all interrogators working for the United States, whether employees of the military, intelligence agencies, or private contractors, understand and abide by specific guidelines consistent with the policy outlined by General Counsel Haynes last year, which prohibited interrogation methods abroad that would be barred in the United States by the U.S. Constitution as well as by the Geneva Conventions. These guidelines should be publicly available.

-- Grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees held by the United States in the campaign against terrorism throughout the world, whether held in facilities run by the U.S. military or intelligence services, or held by other governments at the behest of the United States. The United States should not be operating undisclosed detention facilities to which no independent monitors have access.

-- Make public information about who is detained by occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why, and enable families of detainees to visit their relatives. Even with internal safeguards, incommunicado detention is an invitation to abuse.

-- Videotape all interrogations and other interaction with detainees so responsible personnel know there will be a record of any abuses. These videotapes should be regularly reviewed by supervisory personnel to ensure full compliance with interrogation and detention standards in U.S. and international law.

-- Release the results of the investigation the Defense Department conducted into deaths in custody of two detainees held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

-- Ensure that private contractors working for the United States in military or intelligence roles operate under clear, legal procedures so they can be held criminally responsible for complicity in illegal acts. Under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which I worked with Senators Sessions and DeWine to enact in the 106th Congress, a contractor or subcontractor of the military can be prosecuted in Federal court if the crime of which he is accused is a felony when committed in the United States.

-- Take responsibility and be accountable for the breakdown of civilian control and loss of lawful authority.

Mr. President, two and a half years ago, shortly after 2,986 people of some 60 nationalities died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Pennsylvania, there were expressions of sympathy and good will toward our country unlike any we had experienced since the end of the Second World War.

I remember how the cover of the French newspaper, Le Monde, proclaimed “Today, We Are All Americans.” The National Anthem was played at Buckingham Palace.

Today, that sympathy and good will, which offered such promise, has long since dissipated. In fact, it has been squandered. Squandered by an Administration blinded by arrogance, steeped in condescension, prone to distortions of the truth, motivated by simplistic notions of “good versus evil,” and having only the most rudimentary understanding of the Iraqi people, their culture, their faith and traditions.

While we are continually treated with rosy assertions that things are getting better, the number of U.S. casualties soars. What was conceived as a campaign against terrorism, focused on al Qaeda, is increasingly perceived by many of the world’s 1 billion, 200 million Muslims as a war of aggression against Islam by the United States and our predominantly Christian allies.

I have no doubt that most Iraqis are relieved to be rid of Saddam Hussein and the horrors of his regime. Most Iraqis abhor violence and want to rebuild their country. Nor should there be any doubt about our concern for the safety of the overwhelming majority of American soldiers and civilians whose motives are honorable and who are bravely risking their lives.

But the individuals at Abu Ghraib prison, at Bagram Air Base, and elsewhere who have violated the rights of prisoners, were not acting in a vacuum. There was a culture that encouraged or allowed it. Discipline was lacking. Accountability was lacking. And just as those who committed these crimes should be prosecuted, the civilian and military officials who failed in their responsibility to ensure that the law was respected should also be held accountable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 4, 2004, OpEd in the Washington Post by Leonard S. Rubenstein, Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights, entitled “Stopping the Abuse of Detainees,” be printed in the Record.

####

Keep in mind that Leahy was a state prosecutor in private life. He was also in Naval Intelligence in the service, and sat on (and chaired) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for many years. He knows as much about what goes in DC and the world as anyone does.

You will note, however, that, typically, he fails to point out that he didn't start running his mouth, either, til the photos appeared on television, even though from his statement alone it is obvious that he's known about these things all along. Indeed, anyone could have who bothers to read the papers with any attention.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by RBS

Is it true that they knew about this MONTHS ago?!?

Evidently. They started an investigation the day after it was reported. Also, though I never heard about it, they did a press release on the matter three days after it was reported in January, telling assembled members of the world press that abuse of prisoners was being investigated at the site.

Bush says sorry as calls grow for Rumsfeld to quit

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
07 May 2004

George Bush's White House was yesterday facing its greatest crisis yet, with fresh demands for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, tumbling presidential poll ratings and the publication of shocking new pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail.

In an attempt to repair America's, and his own, battered image, Mr Bush issued the formal apology for the prisoner abuse he failed to provide during his Arab television interview on Wednesday. After a meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan at the White House yesterday, Mr Bush told reporters: "I told his majesty I'm sorry for the humiliation suffered by the prisoners and by their families."

Mr Bush also publicly backed the besieged Mr Rumsfeld, calling him a "really good Secretary of Defence" and "an important part of the cabinet" who "will stay in my cabinet". But for the first time since Mr Bush took office, the administration's vaunted façade of unity was in pieces amid the controversy over Mr Rumsfeld and the unhappiness of Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, which was revealed in a magazine article.

On Wednesday evening, senior Bush aides had let it be known that the President had privately scolded Mr Rumsfeld for failing to keep the White House abreast of the scandal. This suggestion was disputed by Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post yesterday ran a previously unpublished photograph on its front page of Lynndie England, the reservist private who had already been seen in earlier pictures from Abu Ghraib, holding a leash tied around the neck of a naked prisoner sprawled on the floor.

There is every sign that the Defence Secretary intends to tough it out. Aides cancelled a speaking engagement in Pennsylvania yesterday so he could prepare his testimony for an emergency hearing today of the Senate Armed Services committee, where Republicans are hardly any less angry than Democrats over the affair.

One task will be to explain to members of Congress why he did not inform them of the internal Pentagon report on the abuse during a visit to Capitol Hill last week, on the very day the CBS network had shown the pictures of the abuse that was detailed in the report.

Even after the storm broke, furious senators had to turn to the internet to read the now infamous report by Maj-Gen Antonio Taguba before the Pentagon sent them copies. Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, said: "We didn't have a clue." The Pentagon's behaviour was "entirely unacceptable" and "a complete breakdown in communication," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld is also struggling to explain why, even as late as this weekend when the uproar was in full cry, he had not properly read the 53-page report. General Richard Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the country's senior uniformed official, is also being heavily criticised for his failure to read the explosive document in full until very late in the day.

Democratic critics argue that, as the civilian ultimately in charge of the US armed forces, Mr Rumsfeld must take responsibility. By dispensing with the Geneva Conventions for detainees in the "war on terror" and by letting unaccountable private contractors into what was once the preserve of the military, he had helped create an "anything goes" climate in the prison and interrogation process, Democrats say.

John Kerry, Mr Bush's Democratic challenger for the White House, and Tom Harkin, a Democratic member of the Senate panel, have publicly demanded that Mr Rumsfeld either resign or be sacked. So has Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who accuses the Defence Secretary of "a cover-up from the start on this issue".

But two factors argue against his departure. One is the sheer difficulty of changing the Pentagon high command at so fraught a moment on the ground in Iraq, when 60 per cent of Americans, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, believes the US has lost control in Iraq.

Another is that to get rid of Mr Rumsfeld would be an admission by Mr Bush that he had made a massive mistake in his Iraq strategy, and no president has been more reluctant than this one to concede error.

I'm quite happy to see that Gary has given his life to god and has become a Christian Scientist.

Congrats on your conversion, my friend.

[patricia]

Heckling has just broken out during Rumsfeld's opening statements.
Cameras are immediatley trained on the hecklers, one of which is wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fire Rumsfeld".

Originally Posted by patricia

Heckling has just broken out during Rumsfeld's opening statements.
Cameras are immediatly trained on the hecklers, one of which is wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fire Rumsfeld".

Chris must be on his laptop then.

[patricia]

Already, Rumsfeld has said that he told Mr Bush about the allegations of abuse in January. Why then, did Mr Bush say that he had no inkling this was happening until he saw the pictures on "60 Minutes"?
Does he only believe something happened if there are pictures?? Can't he read?? Presumably, he was given written material and progress reports regarding these matters.
I would assume that the matter was brought up in conversations between Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush. So, was it not important enough to grab Mr Bush's attention??

[Root Doctor]

"Can't he read??"

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question.

Presumably, he was given written material and progress reports regarding these matters.

Presumably? So you're breaking out the long knives over a presumption?

I would assume that the matter was brought up in conversations between Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush. So, was it not important enough to grab Mr Bush's attention??

Assume? My goodness Patricia, you're truly going on a rock solid foundation here.

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld just last week told Chris Matthews that President Bush didn't even consult him on the war. So there may be some underlying animosity there. So perhaps Bush WASN'T briefed on this situation. Perhaps your hatred of Bush isn't allowing you to look at the bigger picture here.

Your assumptions about how things work in the White House leave you at a disadvantage.

[moneyp]

Normally noted for its efficient corporate-style management, and an
ability to stay "on message" and ahead of the curve on bad news, the
Bush administration

Wait, THIS Bush Administration? Didn't we just have a committee hearing on their inability to stay ahead of the curve on bad news?

"Somebody at the top has to be held accountable for these abuses," says
John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

Well, if a political scientist from the University of Chicago says it, it must be true.

Secretary of State Powell, whose skeptical view of the Iraq operation
has been long known, went off the reservation a bit Wednesday night,
when he raised the specter of the My Lai massacre - which produced the
most notorious of the Vietnam War's horrific images - in an interview
on "Larry King Live." He said: "In war, these sorts of horrible things
happen every now and again, but they're still to be deplored."

Yes, the same Colin Powell when informed of the massive civilian casualties on the road to Basra, a massacre initiated after the cease fire, told reporters, "I'm not interested in that."

Is this the first time that Bush has apologized for anything?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Presumably? So you're breaking out the long knives over a presumption?




Assume? My goodness Patricia, you're truly going on a rock solid foundation here.

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld just last week told Chris Matthews that President Bush didn't even consult him on the war. So there may be some underlying animosity there. So perhaps Bush WASN'T briefed on this situation. Perhaps your hatred of Bush isn't allowing you to look at the bigger picture here.

Your assumptions about how things work in the White House leave you at a disadvantage.

Well, Scott, I'm just going by what Mr Bush said when backed into a corner, when he insisted that he knew nothing of these abuses until he, like everyone who watches TV, saw the photographs on "60 Minutes".

I used non-specific terms because, like you, I was not there when and if any discussions took place between Bush and Rumsfeld. Now we find out that Mr Bush was informed. Mr Rumsfeld said he briefed him as the situation unfolded. So, that would seem to make Mr Bush only a casual acquaintence of the truth.
So, did Bush know about this, or didn't he? If he did, he lied about when he did. If he didn't then Rumsfeld lied when he stated, today, that he had kept Mr Bush apprised of the unfolding events.

Which is it??

Just depends on who you're going to believe Patricia.

Something very bizarre has been going on in that inner circle. And I wouldn't be suprised if Bush had not been aprised of the situation. Cumminication in this department has already been exposed as being deplorable.

Rumsfeld seems to be getting set up as a fall guy, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that he's lashing out and trying to take some others down with him.

President Bush(according to Rumsfeld)did not seek Rumsfeld's council on the war in Iraq. Powell's either. Now here are the two people in his cabinet with the best understanding of Iraq.

What I'm saying is that it looks as though there is a lot of internal animosity and the recent events in Iraq are starting to bring it to the surface. Problem is, now you'll really have to think about who you are going to believe. Or you can just dismiss them all as liars a la Chris A.

But I do believe that one side is telling the truth in this matter. We may never know who. But I think in this matter, you'll have to at least temporarily suspend your hatred of Bush, and set your blame finger to manual rather than automatic if you have any aspirations of looking at this objectively.

Originally Posted by mone peterson

...Is this the first time that Bush has apologized for anything?

I believe so, and even the, the "apology" came only after his interview on that propaganda station failed to change any minds. Also, he did not apologize to the victims of these atrocities, he told the king of Jordan that he was "sorry." What we have here is a despicable little wimp who makes more blunders than any elected president ever has, and has not the guts to stand accountable.

[Uli]

Watching the Rumsy interrogations here is my short assessment.

1. Rumsfeld has his and his troups asses covered quite well so far.
2. He should therefore not resign.
3. In view of the diplomatic, financial, legal & political disaster this Iraq war is some big heads have to roll, somebody has to be the "bad guy" for the president.
4. He has to fire Rumsy.
5. He is probably too stupid to do it.
6. He shouldn't be allowed to do a second term.

[SinginSumo]

Originally Posted by Rainman

If Bush fires Rumsfeld -- the only honorable thing to do -- there is no compromise -- I will vote for the punk himself, come November, because he will have proven himself capable of responsible command apart from his own personal ambitions. If not, I'll not be surprised, as he's never held himself accountable to anything else, nor has any of his kind. Nevertheless, if he does the right thing this once, I swear on my father's grave that I'll vote for him for reelection.

Baby & bathwater, Gary?

And what's the story with this thread's title??

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by SinginSumo

Baby & bathwater, Gary?

And what's the story with this thread's title??

Gary will answer as he sees fit, of course, but the last question has a rather simplistic explanation from my perspective ... Rumsfeld + Wolfowitz = Rumsfeldowitz. Then you add in the rest of the Pentagon (and beyond) cast of characters, and you have the Inc. portion. Must go is, obviously, self-explanatory.

[SinginSumo]

Thanks, Ron.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Presumably? So you're breaking out the long knives over a presumption? Assume? My goodness Patricia, you're truly going on a rock solid foundation here.

What part of "Rumsfeld has said that he told Mr Bush about the allegations of abuse in January" don't you understand? That certainly shouldn't lead Bush to say he "had no inkling" of any abuse occurring.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld just last week told Chris Matthews that President Bush didn't even consult him on the war. So there may be some underlying animosity there. So perhaps Bush WASN'T briefed on this situation.

No, Bush was *told* by Rumsfeld. Again, does Bush need pictures to believe
something?

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Perhaps your hatred of Bush isn't allowing you to look at the bigger picture here.

Perhaps you need to look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Your assumptions about how things work in the White House leave you at a disadvantage.

And your assumptions leave you, where exactly?

What part of "Rumsfeld has said that he told Mr Bush about the allegations of abuse in January" don't you understand?

Slurpy, what part of Bush saying that he hadn't even been made aware of it before he saw the segment on 60 Minutes don't YOU understand?

It's a "he said, he said" situation. A smart man knows when NOT to put his bet on a particular horse. But if you have some Secret Slurpy Sleuth information that can implicate one or the other, then I'm all ears.

It's funny how enthusiastic each of you are to take Rumsfeld's word on something all of the sudden.

No, Bush was *told* by Rumsfeld. Again, does Bush need pictures to believe

I don't question whether or not you've got an inside track as to what goes on in the White House, but once again, proof of your "fact" in this situation would be nice. Tape recording, memo, meeting transcripts, anything.......

Perhaps you need to look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary.

Perhaps you could come right out and make whatever shallow point your trying to make. I have not been hypocritical about this at all. I'm defending neither Bush nor Rumsfeld.

One of them is lying. Period. But seeing as how I don't work there, I have no idea which one is doing the lying. And though it will ruin your perceived reputation, neither do you.

But, in all fairness, I think I should at least give you the oppurtunity to expose me for the hypocrite that I am. So if you would please, direct everyone here to the hypocritical statements that I have made on this thread.

And your assumptions leave you, where exactly?

Same place I started. Not knowing anymore about the truth of the matter than I did before. Yet still having to suffer the self congratulatory, all-knowing remarks of some woman named Slurpy.

[Ron Thorne]

Well, lookee here, folks. The Nation magazine called for Rumsfeld's ouster over a year ago. This is especially interesting in view of what we've discovered in recent days. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the buck must stop somewhere ... first.



Rumsfeld Should Go

[from the April 21, 2003 issue]

Many political figures activists and organizations--including Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and
MoveOn.org--are calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. We took that step more than a year ago, and in our edit pointed to Rumsfeld's rejection of concerns about treatment of Afghan and Al-Qaeda prisoners. Rumsfeld's departure would be only the beginning, not the end, of a full accounting of who was responsible for prisoner abuses in Iraq and elsewhere. Fully mindful of that fact, we join the call for his resignation.

The Defense Secretary should resign--now. Although George W. Bush is ultimately responsible for the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq, it is Donald Rumsfeld who is the Cabinet member directly charged with planning and carrying out the nation's wars. He should take with him those two self-inflated policy warriors, Paul Wolfowitz (his deputy) and Richard Perle (head of the Defense Policy Board until his venality was exposed). Together with Vice President Cheney, they were the principal architects of this venture, in pursuit of which they have deceived the American people, misled US soldiers whose lives are at risk, scorned the United Nations and defied international law.

We do not assume that these armchair generals will in fact resign. Instead, we present this indictment in the hope that, as Americans begin to grasp the full dimensions of the debacle in Iraq, they too will demand their removal. Citizens may also question the continued presence in government of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who were complicit in plunging our country into a war that, even if we win militarily, history will record as an unnecessary and terrible loss: We have unleashed a new era of nuclear proliferation and "pre-emption," and we have turned a majority of the world's people against us. These facts will not change even if Iraq's defenses continue to crumble and the war ends quickly.

The indictment has many counts, from misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq, to the miscalculation of human and financial costs, to the shredding of international relationships. While carefully avoiding any reckless comments himself, Rumsfeld unleashed his subordinates and advisers to publicly make the case that the fight would be easy and the troops welcomed. Perle, for example, explained flippantly that "the Iraqi opposition is kind of like an MRE [meals ready to eat, a freeze-dried Army ration]. The ingredients are there and you just have to add water, in this case US support." Democracy cannot function without a standard of disclosure and accountability. If Rumsfeld and team had been even crudely forthcoming, the country might have resisted this bloody trap. The cowardly Congress might have paused before endorsing a premature mandate for open-ended warmaking.

The troops on the ground were misled along with their commanders. "I honestly don't think the Iraqi public wants us here," Chief Warrant Officer Sean McNeal said. "These people are not going to give up as easily as everyone expects." Rumsfeld's reaction when things turned ugly was to claim that the plans were the work of Gen. Tommy Franks and to lead an assault on the press when it reported what was happening. But this is Rumsfeld's war for the same reason Vietnam became Robert McNamara's. Rumsfeld seems to have forgotten, or never absorbed, what America learned at great price from that misbegotten war.

Dismissive of the UN and longtime advocates of unilateral action against Iraq (Rumsfeld argued on the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that Bush should "go against Iraq, not just Al Qaeda"), Rumsfeld and his coterie now dare to complain that Saddam is violating the laws of war and does not fight fair. But the "asymmetrical" tactics of the Iraqis should come as no surprise. The Vietcong did not wear uniforms either; they too hid among civilian villagers. "We are invading their country," Chief Warrant Officer Glen Woodard observes. "I'd be by my window with a shotgun too." Similarly, Rumsfeld, who rejected concerns about US treatment of Afghan and Al Qaeda prisoners, now invokes the Geneva conventions on the lawful treatment of prisoners of war. Has he forgotten the pictures of Afghan prisoners, their beards shorn against their religious beliefs, displayed in Guantánamo, held in a legal limbo without the protection of POW status? Or the two homicides in a US Army prison in Afghanistan, where an Army pathologist described the cause of death as "blunt force injuries"?

American leaders would be wise to avoid invoking the Geneva conventions--or better still to observe them. The central question in the minds of many millions around the world is whether the United States, in violation of the UN Charter and long-established terms of international law, is waging an illegal war. The brutality of that war becomes more apparent by the day, as the US military wreaks more death and destruction on Baghdad and other cities and the humanitarian crisis threatens to spiral out of control.

Our indictment is ultimately not about logistics or tactics. Even if US military power prevails in Iraq, what must be ended is a failed foreign policy many of whose key proponents are in the Pentagon. These officials are now working to insure that a US military proconsul, rather than the UN, runs postwar Iraq--ignoring the fact that this will be taken as further proof of US imperial designs. Instead, we must revive efforts to strengthen international law and international institutions. We have no illusions about how difficult this will be.

As a first step, Rumsfeld should go.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Chris A

What we have here is a despicable little wimp who makes more blunders than any elected president ever has, and has not the guts to stand accountable.

Better watch it-that despicable wimp can kick your ass.

As out of touch as he is, I can't be sure that he kicked the habit, never mind ass.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Better watch it-that despicable wimp can kick your ass.

Only by siccing his friends on you. I see George W Bush as the kind of kid, now taller, who probably never had to stand up, by himself for an idea, or a path he took. He seems to always have had a safety net that was there when he screwed up, both personally and in his various business ventures. At worst, one of his burly friends will kick your ass.
There is no reason to think that this will be any different. Somebody else will do the heavy lifting.

But let's move to the matter at hand, the question of who knew what and when they knew it.
To say that Mr Bush was totally ignorant of abuses by the military, until he found out by seeing the pictures on "60 Minutes" is astounding. If it's true, then at what point does a matter become so grave that Mr Rumsfeld would think it important enough to give Mr Bush a heads up?? I guess when pictures are shown on television and in the newspapers.

My question is whether Mr Bush is part of some "Sesame Street" generation of Presidents, with a tiny attention span for the written word, preferring reports with pictures and minimum text to those with big words and involved narrative? His difficulty was alluded to, while he was running for President, to the extent that it was speculated that he is dyslexic. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a possible explanation of why pages and pages of reports are apparently ignored, in favour of summaries on one page. Mr Bush has often said, jokingly, that he doesn't read anything. No kidding!!!

Given that complaints have been reported as early as April, 2003, how could he have been kept in the dark??

[stonecrest]

I don't mean to derail this thread but this is by far one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Ah, what a character, that ol' Rummy.

[moneyp]

It's a "he said, he said" situation. A smart man knows when NOT to put his bet on a particular horse. But if you have some Secret Slurpy Sleuth information that can implicate one or the other, then I'm all ears.

How about this?

Monte wrote:

Evidently. They started an investigation the day after it was reported. Also, though I never heard about it, they did a press release on the matter three days after it was reported in January, telling assembled members of the world press that abuse of prisoners was being investigated at the site.

So if they issued a freaking press release for abuses at the prison, does Bush really have an excuse for not knowing about them?

[frankiepop]

Rumsfeld Must Go?

wrong question -- the issue is how does he stay???

the only plausible theory is the monkey picture....that means rumsfeld has a picture of dubbya, his boss, naked with a monkey...


it's the only plausible explanation on why he's still here...