http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact


Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

No spin in the article, Chief. BTW, thanks for the label.

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

I'm not only ready for it, I'm looking forward to it for the entertainment value.

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

I'm not a Republican, but it's morons like you that make liberals look REALLY bad.

Where's all of our republican fanboys now? I was holding off on posting in hopes of setting a record for being quoted for the most consectutive posts...

The New Yorker isn't quite the NY Times

The New Yorker isn't quite the NY Times

You're right, they are the National Enquirer in disguise :rolleyes:

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

Well played Chief....

In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights. “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me. “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.” The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.” They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.

If Scott Horton will testify before Congress, I am afraid not.

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR
you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

For a former moderator, you sure troll a lot. And it's sloppy, unintelligent trolling at that.

For a former moderator, you sure troll a lot. And it's sloppy, unintelligent trolling at that.

I guess your definition of troll is anything you disagree with.

you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

Hmmm...did you see any mention by me about Clinton, hummers or really anything about this? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything anti-Bush is wrong. I just pointed out the blatant biases associated with the above posts, specifically yours and WussGawd. If you can't even acknowledge to yourself what an extreme liberal you are, you're clueless and helpless, man, just completely lost from rationality.

Bush can claim is "anti-American" what he wants to. Doesn't mean you or I have to agree with it. Of course, I never talked about any of this at all, so I'm not sure what the point is in bringing it up to a quote from me. I'm no Bush fanboy--I'm not sure I agree with even half the things he and his administration does anymore.

You will have to take up your crusade against Rumsfeld with someone else, I am afraid. You will also have to learn the difference between someone pointing out a simple reality (the blatant bias of the article, the New Yorker, Wussgawd, yourself, and the lack of any attributed name to back up the article's claims), and someone giving tacit approval to the acts done in the Abu Ghraib prison. I am doing the former, not the latter.

But, what do I know? I'm just a Nazi, right? Cue PA announcement: "Paging Mr. Chubby, your objectivity is lost. You may claim it at the lost and found. If you care, which we doubt."

CR

Hmmm...did you see any mention by me about Clinton, hummers or really anything about this? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything anti-Bush is wrong. I just pointed out the blatant biases associated with the above posts, specifically yours and WussGawd. If you can't even acknowledge to yourself what an extreme liberal you are, you're clueless and helpless, man, just completely lost from rationality.

Bush can claim is "anti-American" what he wants to. Doesn't mean you or I have to agree with it. Of course, I never talked about any of this at all, so I'm not sure what the point is in bringing it up to a quote from me. I'm no Bush fanboy--I'm not sure I agree with even half the things he and his administration does anymore.

You will have to take up your crusade against Rumsfeld with someone else, I am afraid. You will also have to learn the difference between someone pointing out a simple reality (the blatant bias of the article, the New Yorker, Wussgawd, yourself, and the lack of any attributed name to back up the article's claims), and someone giving tacit approval to the acts done in the Abu Ghraib prison. I am doing the former, not the latter.

But, what do I know? I'm just a Nazi, right? Cue PA announcement: "Paging Mr. Chubby, your objectivity is lost. You may claim it at the lost and found. If you care, which we doubt."

CR

Well that's what happens when there's like 3 political threads going at once what can I say :)

So if the New Yorker is liberal (which I guess it is but I don't read it regularly) then that automatically disqualifies it from ever reporting accurtate news? But what do I know, I'm just another liberal dolt :rolleyes:

Well that's what happens when there's like 3 political threads going at once what can I say :)

So if the New Yorker is liberal (which I guess it is but I don't read it regularly) then that automatically disqualifies it from ever reporting accurtate news? But what do I know, I'm just another liberal dolt :rolleyes:

Good, then, take it up with those folks. Until I do it, leave me out of it.

Automatically? No. Any source has to be judged on the evidence it presents and the way in which it is presented, both in specific instances and across the history of its publication on related issues. It is my understanding that The New Yorker has established itself as a very left-wing publication. This is further backed by the fact they seem comfortable in spinning together the above article, which doesn't include one single attributable name to support their claims, hiding behind anonymity.

The New Yorker article would be taken a lot more seriously, if the evidence it presents could actually be judged for objectivity. As a former journalist, I can tell you from experience that no mid-stream paper would have run that article without attribution (or let it run amok with its conspiracy-theorist spin). From a journalistic and evidence-based perspective, it's a horribly-written article, and that aspect necessarily leads one to question the veracity of the information it contains.

And, yes, you are a liberal dolt. You're not going to deny you're a liberal are you? And I reserve the right to call anyone a dolt who labels an entire group of people who don't agree with him as "Nazis".

CR

I guess your definition of troll is anything you disagree with.

Huh? I don't have an opinion on this topic, since I didn't even read the article. My definition of a troll is someone who continuously instigates people, which you seem to do at every opportunity you can since you came back to FOFC.

Regardless, I don't give a shit about what you do, I just didn't want you to think people don't realize what you are.

Huh? I don't have an opinion on this topic, since I didn't even read the article. My definition of a troll is someone who continuously instigates people, which you seem to do at every opportunity you can since you came back to FOFC.

Regardless, I don't give a shit about what you do, I just didn't want you to think people don't realize what you are.

uh huh. :rolleyes:

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR


beautiful....

Btw, the guy who wrote this article is the one who exposed the My Lai massacre. So, basically, he's a respected journalist, and Rumsfeld is fucked.

It's funny to me that it seems more and more common that moderate or conservative people label liberals as "biased," and seem to use that term to mean that they are simply wrong and/or not worth listening to. I don't know if anyone else saw the Al Franken vs. Bill O'Reilly CSPAN book show battle, but O'Reilly kept saying that Franken was biased and implying that what he said had no merit, which seemed hilarious to me considering that so far no one has found a significant factual error in any of Franken's books, and the content of his books is essentially pointing out all the lies that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush spew.
It's faulty logic, though. I mean, everyone who has a political opinion is biased to some extent. I just don't see why being liberal completely discredits what someone has to say, whether it be a well-known journalist being published in a well-known national magazine or some guy on a messageboard. It's a total bullshit debating tactic. Also Rumsfeld is so so fucked.

Btw, the guy who wrote this article is the one who exposed the My Lai massacre. So, basically, he's a respected journalist, and Rumsfeld is fucked.

I'm sure that if and when this story grows more, that will bear itself out. Still, from a journalistic perspective, he didn't do himself any favors by not attributing his sources. There's a reason why anonymous sources are looked down upon in the media community--they quite often prove to be faulty or to have their own purposes for revealing the information (purposes which often impact on the validity and veracity of the information itself).

It's funny to me that it seems more and more common that moderate or conservative people label liberals as "biased," and seem to use that term to mean that they are simply wrong and/or not worth listening to. I don't know if anyone else saw the Al Franken vs. Bill O'Reilly CSPAN book show battle, but O'Reilly kept saying that Franken was biased and implying that what he said had no merit, which seemed hilarious to me considering that so far no one has found a significant factual error in any of Franken's books, and the content of his books is essentially pointing out all the lies that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush spew.
It's faulty logic, though. I mean, everyone who has a political opinion is biased to some extent. I just don't see why being liberal completely discredits what someone has to say, whether it be a well-known journalist being published in a well-known national magazine or some guy on a messageboard. It's a total bullshit debating tactic. Also Rumsfeld is so so fucked.

It's funny to me when someone takes specific instances and believes it is only one side doing it. Like when liberals complain about the dishonesty of the Bush administration and seem to think that if Kerry were elected, he would suddenly be some honest guy in the office.

Fact is, timmy, that both sides are subject to bias, and I see both sides accuse the other of it. So I wouldn't just accuse conservatives or moderates of this approach with liberals, but everybody with everybody.

The logic is not faulty. Bias is a very real issue. Consider the recently posted views of the same story on the three major cable new networks, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. The differences in perspective are just immense, and yet, it's the same story.

Does that mean someone or some information is automatically wrong because it comes from a potentially biased source? Not at all. It just means that that is an aspect of that information you have to consider--that parts of the story may have been left out or downplayed for political/personal purposes, or that someone may feel so strongly about certain views that the resulting coloring of the information they are privy to may affect the message, the truth inherent in the information itself. Bias is distortion, and is a very real presence in the media.

It's not faulty in logic at all to consider the veracity of the information before considering the information itself, and the possible biases of the source are very important to that.

CR

P.S. If the article is true, yes, Rumsfeld is so fucked, which as a Republican, I wouldn't mind--I think he's a bad influence on W. ;)

I too wouldn't mind if Rumsfeld went down. I guess my take on the New Yorker story is that I will wait and see if the story has legs.

Just thought you would all like to know that Seymour Hersh has won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting and the prestigious George Polk Award (arguably the most coveted prize by journalists). You don't get these things for lying and shoddy journalism.

Do I believe it all? Not yet. But I am not discounting it out of hand it either, as some liberal nonsense. One thing I do know is that it wasn't 7 or 8 grunt soldiers getting out of hand. It was controlled and coordinated interrogation. My guess is we will all learn it soon enough, thanks to reporters like Mr. Hersh.

It's not faulty in logic at all to consider the veracity of the information before considering the information itself, and the possible biases of the source are very important to that.


I agree with you entirely in terms of bias being a legitimate element to consider when evaluating an article or what someone says, and surely bias exists on both sides. It just seems to me that someone being liberal or having a liberal bias is used to dismiss the person or what they have to say right off the bat more often than a conservative bias is. This is just based on my experiences and things I've observed.

I think that the word liberal has really become kind of a bad word because of things like this, so much so that people like John Kerry try to seperate themselves from the term. It's also exactly the reason that the RNC tried to make Kerry known as a liberal right away when he became the Democratic candidate. If you're a liberal anything you have to say can be dismissed immediately.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. To simply dismiss something or someone because they are a liberal and that makes them biased is faulty logic. I mean, maybe this article in the New Yorker is all wrong and full of lies, but considering the New Yorker is a pretty respectable magazine, to dismiss the article just because it's a liberal magazine is poop. Dismiss it because it's full of lies, etc.

Well, not only is Rummy fucked... but if Bush doesn't come down hard and show that he's totally outraged, he could be fucked as well.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, timmy.

For the record, my opposition to that article at the moment is not so based on liberal bias (the noted facts about Hersh's record in journalism are very compelling, not to mention I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld out on his keister anyway, so long as it doesn't put Kerry in office), as it is on the glaring omission of attributed sources. As a former journalist myself, that really stands out.

Pulitzer Prize or not, that is shoddy work. His information might be good (I guess we'll find out), but the way Hersh went about it here is all wrong, especially considering he then used it as the basis for a lengthy piece that reads like someone desperate to put together a massive conspiracy theory and pulling little bits and facts from anywhere to fit his view.

Without the quotes/information supplied by the unknown Pentagon informant and former intelligence officer, his entire article falls apart like a house of cards. The fact he can't attribute those sources for some reason and that is the basis for the entire article lends me more than a little doubt in my mind to how accurate his take on the situation is.

CR

Didn't Woodward and Berstein use unattributed sources to bring down Nixon? ;)

Bush lied so thousands died

Didn't Woodward and Berstein use unattributed sources to bring down Nixon? ;)

Heh, true enough, but the few sterling examples amongst a sea of false reports in the history of media doesn't mean we can't give some consideration to the veracity of any sources that are unattributed.

CR

Bush lied so thousands died

Catchy. You should write music.

CR

I only wish I created the phrase :p

He could be a hip-hop supa-star!

I know how Kerry can ensure victory. He should try out for American Idol. They'll let him on for the ratings, and if he sucks, he can become the next William Hung.

If against all odds, he's good, he can truly be a hip hop supa-star. :)

CR

If he's the next William Hung, he'll win in a landslide in November. That's just how it is, people :D.

Why did we go into Iraq anyways?

Was it because of WMDs?
Can't be that because there are none

Was it because of a connection to Osama?
Bush said himself there never was one

Was it so the average Iraqi citizen wouldn't be tortured?
Nada on that as well

And why is this war costing the US more now than it did during Shock and Awe?

hxxp://msnbc.msn.com/id/4988252/

Washington Post joining the fray; although not going as high as Rumsfeld, yet. The smoke may be turning into fire shortly.

Note: even Republicans believe it goes higher than the low level MPs.

That's right, because everybody knows nobody on this planet would be mean to other people without the written consent of their CEO...

Why did we go into Iraq anyways?

Was it because of WMDs?
Can't be that because there are none

Was it because of a connection to Osama?
Bush said himself there never was one

Was it so the average Iraqi citizen wouldn't be tortured?
Nada on that as well

And why is this war costing the US more now than it did during Shock and Awe?

There have always been WMD in Iraq. Clinton and foreign intelligence has said the same (UNSCOM even inventoried and documented most of it with the assistance of the Iraqi military back in 94).

If you think there aren't any terrorists in Iraq that are trying to kill Americans, I think CNN can fill in the blanks for you on that one. And yes, they are Al Qaeda.

If you are suggesting that the US Military is the same as the Saddam Regime, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is money all that greedy neo-socialists care about these days? That's not in line at all with what you folks were screaming about prior to liberating Iraq...

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

Well put.

There have always been WMD in Iraq. Clinton and foreign intelligence has said the same (UNSCOM even inventoried and documented most of it with the assistance of the Iraqi military back in 94).

If you think there aren't any terrorists in Iraq that are trying to kill Americans, I think CNN can fill in the blanks for you on that one. And yes, they are Al Qaeda.

If you are suggesting that the US Military is the same as the Saddam Regime, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is money all that greedy neo-socialists care about these days? That's not in line at all with what you folks were screaming about prior to liberating Iraq...

Dutch, you've gone off the deep end on this one.

1. Yes, we knew there were WMD's 10 years ago. But were they still there 1 year ago when we started the war? Perhaps the UN got most or all of them. Perhaps Saddam sold them for cash. Perhaps he destroyed them and kept quiet so he could continue to appear strong to his neighbors and dissident forces inside Iraq.

Whatever it is, we have found ZERO WMDs in over a year. Right now, all evidence supports that there aren't any. At this juncture, if any popped up, it would look more like we "planted" them than there were really there.

2. Terrorists? Or patriots fighting a insurgent war aginst an occupying force? There's not much of a difference many times. I refuse to call them terrorists at this point. To me, they're insurgents. Terrorists attack us on our turf. They're defending their turf. Also, were those insurgents there BEFORE we attacked Iraq? Or have we made the civilians there into insurgents? Probaby some of both.

Yes, now Al Queda has people on the ground in Iraq. But there is very little evidence to show that Iraq supported Al Queda in any material way or that there were major Al Queda forces in Iraq. Not nearly like they exist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt at the very least. Most evidence supports that Al Queda has become much more of a force since we removed Saddam. So it appears that using "terrorists" as a cause to invade Iraq really isn't accurate. We either created or, at the very least, compounded the problem of terrorism in Iraq.

3. We are a step up from Saddam, no doubt. At least in a global sense. But to the average Iraqi, I'm not sure we're much of an improvement right now. At least they knew the rules and what to watch out for under Saddam. Now, there's so many different factions and agendas in Iraq that it would be very easy to get caught on the "wrong side" with some bad folks. The folks in the middle are being forced to choose up for fear of being caught in the crossfire. And many of those folks aren't choosing our side.

I'll wait and see if Scott Horton denies the quotes attributed to his name before I hide behind the typical "this reporter and magazine are out to get me" schtick.

1 more for the wignore list.

...posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths...I think if you bothered to read over the things I've posted here, you'd find that most of them were not only reasonable, but more significantly are being proven more and more true as time goes on.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, timmy.

For the record, my opposition to that article at the moment is not so based on liberal bias (the noted facts about Hersh's record in journalism are very compelling, not to mention I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld out on his keister anyway, so long as it doesn't put Kerry in office), as it is on the glaring omission of attributed sources. As a former journalist myself, that really stands out.

Pulitzer Prize or not, that is shoddy work. His information might be good (I guess we'll find out), but the way Hersh went about it here is all wrong, especially considering he then used it as the basis for a lengthy piece that reads like someone desperate to put together a massive conspiracy theory and pulling little bits and facts from anywhere to fit his view.

Without the quotes/information supplied by the unknown Pentagon informant and former intelligence officer, his entire article falls apart like a house of cards. The fact he can't attribute those sources for some reason and that is the basis for the entire article lends me more than a little doubt in my mind to how accurate his take on the situation is.

CR

I will concede that yes, it'd be better if somebody went on the record, but consider who the story is about. This is in effect an article that totally discredits the second in command of the most powerful military in the world.

The facts are that people are going to speak a lot more freely about such a powerful figure if they know they aren't going to face repercussions. And let's face it, the Bush administration record is well established on how they punish whistleblowers (consider the fate of Joseph Wilson's wife, for starters, continue to the actuary who wanted to inform Congress that the Bushies were lying about the cost of this Medicare boondoggle). Members of the Bush administration have shown they are not afraid to go so far as to commit treason to get back at detractors.

If it wasn't for anonymous sources, Watergate would have never been exposed. Ultimately, the use of anonymous sources comes down to the credibility of the reporter. Now if you're a dirtbag like Jayson Blair, that credibility is nil. On the other hand, if you are Seymour Hersh, veteran reporter, and winner of numerous awards for journalism including the holy grail of journalism prizes, a Pulitzer, that credibility is a lot greater. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that a journalist like Hersh wouldn't risk that credibility unless the story was at least broadly true.

Now I will agree with those that say it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it, but I sincerely believe this is a stake in the heart of Rumsfeld. There will probably even be calls for his resignation from moderate Republicans if this story has any legs at all.

wasnt it the new yorker that first publicized the Abu Garaib photoe and broke that story? I could be wrong here but...I think it was that publication that did, no? Just wondering.

1 more for the wignore list.
HFP didn't say anything too salacious to warrant that :)

(and I just thought I needed to post in this thread so people don't forget about me and so people can call me a crazy liberal.)

I think if you bothered to read over the things I've posted here, you'd find that most of them were not only reasonable, but more significantly are being proven more and more true as time goes on.

He didn't say they were false, just incredibly biased.

He didn't say they were false, just incredibly biased.And I was pointing out that, despite the left-leaning bias he's criticizing, I have been very credible.

And I was pointing out that, despite the left-leaning bias he's criticizing, I have been very credible.

indeed

Pulitzer Prize or not, that is shoddy work. His information might be good (I guess we'll find out), but the way Hersh went about it here is all wrong, especially considering he then used it as the basis for a lengthy piece that reads like someone desperate to put together a massive conspiracy theory and pulling little bits and facts from anywhere to fit his view.

Without the quotes/information supplied by the unknown Pentagon informant and former intelligence officer, his entire article falls apart like a house of cards. The fact he can't attribute those sources for some reason and that is the basis for the entire article lends me more than a little doubt in my mind to how accurate his take on the situation is.

CR

Actually Chief, this is the same formula that he used to expose My Lai. Quotes from various internal sources and statements from a civilian outside. If Scott Horton A) accountable for those quotes and B) is telling the truth, then if the powers that be want to investigate this, he will have to give the names of the 2 JAGs he had a meeting with which I am sure will be accompanied with documentation of that meeting. And from there the cards will start falling.

This is an classic example of an outline without premature compromising. He has been around the block I think it is safe to say.

wasnt it the new yorker that first publicized the Abu Garaib photoe and broke that story? I could be wrong here but...I think it was that publication that did, no? Just wondering.

Yes, IIRC.

1 more for the wignore list.

I will not accept a wignore.

I will not accept a wignore.

Not you, man!

I know I just wanted to say that. :)

Dutch, you've gone off the deep end on this one.

1. Yes, we knew there were WMD's 10 years ago. But were they still there 1 year ago when we started the war? Perhaps the UN got most or all of them. Perhaps Saddam sold them for cash. Perhaps he destroyed them and kept quiet so he could continue to appear strong to his neighbors and dissident forces inside Iraq.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But all signs pointed to the fact that he had them, including signs created by Clinton, foreign intelligence, CIA, and the UN. After 9/11, we had an obligation to act because of Saddam's entanglement with so many different terror organizations and groups, many linked to Al Qaeda. Failure to act would have been irresponsable after the realization of Al Qaeda's new "global reach" capabilities.

Whatever it is, we have found ZERO WMDs in over a year. Right now, all evidence supports that there aren't any. At this juncture, if any popped up, it would look more like we "planted" them than there were really there.

We didn't find Saddam Hussein immediately because he was hidden, we continue to dig up aircraft that they buried in the desert floor that we didn't know were there. Sure, I doubt we will find a big bunker filled with chemical warheaded SCUD missles. But we have found a bunch of components to make these things disassembled and the chemicals needed can be easily buried and remain undetected.

Anyway, what happened to it all? That's not our problem that they hid it or sold it, that was squarely the responsability of Saddam Hussein. He paid the price, all is fair.

2. Terrorists? Or patriots fighting a insurgent war aginst an occupying force? There's not much of a difference many times. I refuse to call them terrorists at this point. To me, they're insurgents. Terrorists attack us on our turf. They're defending their turf. Also, were those insurgents there BEFORE we attacked Iraq? Or have we made the civilians there into insurgents? Probaby some of both.

These people are either Sunni Muslims from the Saddam Triangle or Foreign Fighters. The Shia fighters under Al Sadr are the only ones I consider insurgents. The vast majority of the killings have taken place from the terrorists, not Al Sadr's group.

Yes, now Al Queda has people on the ground in Iraq. But there is very little evidence to show that Iraq supported Al Queda in any material way or that there were major Al Queda forces in Iraq. Not nearly like they exist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt at the very least. Most evidence supports that Al Queda has become much more of a force since we removed Saddam. So it appears that using "terrorists" as a cause to invade Iraq really isn't accurate. We either created or, at the very least, compounded the problem of terrorism in Iraq.

Or Syria? How does an Al Qaeda operative travel from Egypt to Pakistan. The easiest way is through Syria, into Iraq's northern territory, and then through Iran. Again, if Saddam Hussein was unable to comply with UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire to allow himself to control his borders from terror groups and his territory from terror camps, that's not our problem. That was Saddam's responability to not harbor terrorists and he failed to understand that responsability.

3. We are a step up from Saddam, no doubt. At least in a global sense. But to the average Iraqi, I'm not sure we're much of an improvement right now. At least they knew the rules and what to watch out for under Saddam. Now, there's so many different factions and agendas in Iraq that it would be very easy to get caught on the "wrong side" with some bad folks. The folks in the middle are being forced to choose up for fear of being caught in the crossfire. And many of those folks aren't choosing our side.

You are wrong. A VAST MAJORITY of Iraqi's have chosen "our side". Somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% have chose to either work with us or remain neutral. We have rebuilt their infrastructure to levels not seen in Iraq in decades. The US Army has built over 500 schools for their children, they have built modern hospitals, put unemployment at it's lowest levels in modern iraqi history, already returned Iraq to pre-war levels of Oil productions and opened a pipeline to Turkey (which was shut down for 15 years).

Iraq is a rich country and their citizens know it. They know that the USA offers them a vastly superior deal than the foreign terrorists or the Sunni Triangle Thugs ever did. Whether or not our media, Al Jazeera, or the Euro media wish to harp on these "Boring" details is besides the fact. The fact is that Iraq is a better place and getting better, and the Iraqi's know it.

If Rumsfeld specifically gave approval to interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Convention, he should resign. Plain and simple. But I continue to find it odd that the media ignored this story when the Pentagon first reported the abuse back in January, and waited until there were sensational pictures to publish before they began covering Abu Ghraib. I myself think that Rumsfeld didn't order or authorize anything illegal, and this will blow over. Heck, even after all this the vast majority of polled Americans don't think Rumsfeld should step down.

Also, just an FYI, there's been a really interesting piece on Iraq and WMD in the conservatively biased Front Page Magazine. I won't link to the piece, and I'll point out the bias in the publication now, but if anybody's still objective enough to read something that doesn't fit their particular view of Iraq, politics, Dubya, etc. you might find it worthwhile.

And BTW, Chubby, you are a troll... plain and simple. NoMyths, JohnGalt, albionmoonlight are all people I can disagree with and still have a rational discussion. You rely far too much on repeated catchphrases and empty rhetoric, adding nothing to the debate but bile and venom.

Heck, even after all this the vast majority of polled Americans don't think Rumsfeld should step down.

I would contend that it does not matter what a poll says. I didn't think it mattered when Clinton was the President, and I don't think it matters now. We should not govern by 'polls.'

would the majority of Americans want Rumsfeld to stay if the report in the opening article is true that a directive was ordered from those high up in the administration? I think that changes the circumstances.

That being said, I don't like the man, but as the facts currently stand, I don't think he should have to go... at least until Bush's term runs out next March :)

(and I just thought I needed to post in this thread so people don't forget about me and so people can call me a crazy liberal.)


Good idea. I'm a crazy liberal too!

You are wrong. A VAST MAJORITY of Iraqi's have chosen "our side". Somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% have chose to either work with us or remain neutral. We have rebuilt their infrastructure to levels not seen in Iraq in decades. The US Army has built over 500 schools for their children, they have built modern hospitals, put unemployment at it's lowest levels in modern iraqi history, already returned Iraq to pre-war levels of Oil productions and opened a pipeline to Turkey (which was shut down for 15 years).

Iraq is a rich country and their citizens know it. They know that the USA offers them a vastly superior deal than the foreign terrorists or the Sunni Triangle Thugs ever did. Whether or not our media, Al Jazeera, or the Euro media wish to harp on these "Boring" details is besides the fact. The fact is that Iraq is a better place and getting better, and the Iraqi's know it.

Where exactly do you get this information. Please provide a link or something (and don't provide any thing related to Fox News).

Bush has all but given up looking for WMDs. His intelligence on them was spotty at best and he knew it. Ditto for the Saddam-Osama connection. Bush has admitted there was never any evidence of a connection.

What did the Iraq war have to do with the war on terrorism? Absolutely nothing. Its just been a HUGE diversion of resources. We could've been fixing Afghanistan.

The facts are biased

If Rumsfeld specifically gave approval to interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Convention, he should resign. Plain and simple. But I continue to find it odd that the media ignored this story when the Pentagon first reported the abuse back in January, and waited until there were sensational pictures to publish before they began covering Abu Ghraib. I myself think that Rumsfeld didn't order or authorize anything illegal, and this will blow over. Heck, even after all this the vast majority of polled Americans don't think Rumsfeld should step down.

Now come on Cam. When any administration admits a bit of wrongdoing openly, it's almost always a smokescreen. As you should know, it takes time to gather sources and go through red tape.

This is Rumsfeld's 3rd go around. If you honestly believe he doesn't know every nook and cranny of his own department, then I don't know what to say. It's like saying J. Edgar Hoover had no idea what was going on in the FBI. Ironically this sounds exactly like how people defended McNamara.

Rumsfeld spoke a grain of truth in his testimony to Congress. "I am responsible."

Rumsfeld says he's responsible but he's not taking any responsibility

would the majority of Americans want Rumsfeld to stay if the report in the opening article is true that a directive was ordered from those high up in the administration? I think that changes the circumstances.

Well if true and since perjury to Congress doesn't seem to matter anymore, he probably will get his medals and carry on.

If Rumsfeld specifically gave approval to interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Convention, he should resign.

If Rumsfeld gave approval, a resignation does not go far enough, IMO. I think he should be prosecuted for war crimes if this is true.

Where exactly do you get this information. Please provide a link or something (and don't provide any thing related to Fox News).

Bush has all but given up looking for WMDs. His intelligence on them was spotty at best and he knew it. Ditto for the Saddam-Osama connection. Bush has admitted there was never any evidence of a connection.

What did the Iraq war have to do with the war on terrorism? Absolutely nothing. Its just been a HUGE diversion of resources. We could've been fixing Afghanistan.

The facts are biased
You don't believe any of this is true?

We have rebuilt their infrastructure to levels not seen in Iraq in decades. The US Army has built over 500 schools for their children, they have built modern hospitals, put unemployment at it's lowest levels in modern iraqi history, already returned Iraq to pre-war levels of Oil productions and opened a pipeline to Turkey (which was shut down for 15 years).

Is it because you choose not to know? Or do you really don't want to believe any of this can be going on? In other words, you just want to hear only the bad parts and none of the good parts. I would then assume that no amount of facts can ever be presented if you only want to hear or know the bad parts.

If Rumsfeld gave approval, a resignation does not go far enough, IMO. I think he should be prosecuted for war crimes if this is true.
Before or after prosecuting Saddam for killing thousands? By the way, have you heard any apologies from Baathists or Sunnis or others yet?

Before or after prosecuting Saddam for killing thousands? By the way, have you heard any apologies from Baathists or Sunnis or others yet? Thats like comparing apples to a retarded chimp. No one is saying Saddam shouldn't be tried. Why does it have to be black and white for some people "oh, they have to try Saddam, but that somehow means they can't try RUmsfeld."

You don't believe any of this is true?


Is it because you choose not to know? Or do you really don't want to believe any of this can be going on? In other words, you just want to hear only the bad parts and none of the good parts. I would then assume that no amount of facts can ever be presented if you only want to hear or know the bad parts.

He asked for a link. Is that so hard?

Terrorist - For all the crap this administration is trying to drum up, there's been remarkable little evidence to say that Saddam encouraged terrorism to any larger extent than pretty much any Middle Eastern country. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.

WMDs - None found. Period, end of story. There may be pink elephants out there too, but we haven't found those either.

Links between Iraq and 9/11 - None. Period, end of story.

Rumsfield - Should the story be proven true, he has broken the Geneva Convention and is a War Criminal - and should be prosecuted as such in Geneva.

I'm out of this thread. It's the same old BS discussion.

Before or after prosecuting Saddam for killing thousands? By the way, have you heard any apologies from Baathists or Sunnis or others yet?

And they are US citizens? And they are members of the Executive branch of our Federal Government? You don't have to answer quickly. You can take some time to consider those differences.

Before or after prosecuting Saddam for killing thousands? By the way, have you heard any apologies from Baathists or Sunnis or others yet?

The question of whether Saddam is a war criminal (and he should and will be tried) is not even remotely related to the question of whether Rumsfeld is a war criminal. And we should not be justifying our own misdeeds on the basis that others have done worse things. I don't expect to hear Baathists to apologize. I do expect our troops to not do the things we supposedly invaded Iraq to stop the Baathists from doing.

The question of whether Saddam is a war criminal (and he should and will be tried) is not even remotely related to the question of whether Rumsfeld is a war criminal. And we should not be justifying our own misdeeds on the basis that others have done worse things. I don't expect to hear Baathists to apologize. I do expect our troops to not do the things we supposedly invaded Iraq to stop the Baathists from doing.

Did I miss the article where our troops were committing mass genocide against a minority group of people?

Did I miss the article where our troops were committing mass genocide against a minority group of people?

This thread is about the mistreatment of prisoners.

So the New Yorker broke one story that turned out to be true and now the REP's say the next breaking story is automatically a lie? Interesting. I would think after the first Truism they would get a little credit whether or not the story is true....Wouldnt after the first true story you say, "interesting. Perhaps this story is true as well. I'd like to wait to see how it plays out before I pass judgement, but it is interesting." Immediately, Dems say its true and Reps say the publication is crap. Partisan garbage at its finest. Ive learned, somepeople will go to death for Bush and some will not (im the latter) but you should be able to "flip flop". Learn from your mistakes and change your judgment....ITs called "Learning".

My semi-neutral (but generally right-wing leaning) view on this: I want to see some better evidence before I believe the story, but if (big if) this turns out to be accurate you're probably looking at the end of Rumsfield's career and probably Bush's presidency as well. And rightly so.

After only a week, Bush's "you're doing a great job" sound bite is already looking like it will surpass "MIssion Accomplished" and "bring it on" on his greatest hits list.

I doubt it. Politics aside, Donald Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, has done his job superbly. He has done everything asked of him with great success. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way.

Politics aside...It's an election year. There is no "politics aside".

Now come on Cam. When any administration admits a bit of wrongdoing openly, it's almost always a smokescreen. As you should know, it takes time to gather sources and go through red tape.

This is Rumsfeld's 3rd go around. If you honestly believe he doesn't know every nook and cranny of his own department, then I don't know what to say. It's like saying J. Edgar Hoover had no idea what was going on in the FBI. Ironically this sounds exactly like how people defended McNamara.

Rumsfeld spoke a grain of truth in his testimony to Congress. "I am responsible."

Right. Whether he ordered it or not (and I find it hard to believe that something this critical didn't reach as high as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld), it happened on his watch.

The Republicans are all about "personal responsibility" (or so they claim). It's high time that Rumsfeld fell on his sword. Whether he ordered it or not, he is in charge, he is responsible. Time to go, Rummy.

I doubt it. Politics aside, Donald Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, has done his job superbly. He has done everything asked of him with great success. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way.

I disagree strongly with this statement. He sent in a force too small and too lightly armed and armored to win the peace. He conveniently winked at systemic violations of the Geneva convention. He managed to do an admirable job in a few months of helping to undermine a system of alliances that 50+ years worth of Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, worked to build up, and oh, btw, things have only become worse.

Rumsfeld has bollocksed up just about everything he's touched, and frankly, he should go, the abuse scandals notwithstanding.

If Rumsfeld gave approval, a resignation does not go far enough, IMO. I think he should be prosecuted for war crimes if this is true.
From the accounts I have read, and I admit I have been a bit too busy to follow this story as well I would like, I would hope he would be prosecuted for war crimes with a small "c". What I mean by that; is that stripping, blindfolding, and forcing prisoners into a "dog pile" is a far cry from rape, interrogation through torture, genocide, or outright murder for that matter. This is by no means an excuse. No one should have decided to trade the honor of this nation for some short term gain. IF it was a policy to humiliate these prisoners as a tactic to loosen their tongues, and IF Rumsfeld signed off on it, then he should be held responsible for it.

The punishment should fit the crime though. When you brandish the phrase War Crimes, you summon up images far worse than the pictures released.

I doubt it. Politics aside, Donald Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, has done his job superbly. He has done everything asked of him with great success. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way.
So it wasn't his idea to GO GO GO now, rather than wait for the divsion that was supposed to deploy through Turkey? It wasn't his plan that had our troops bypassing and isolating hotspots thereby exposing our unprotected support troops to enemy attacks? It wasn't his responsibility to have a game plan in place for what to do when the Saddam's regime was defeated? I think his performance has been a mixed bag.

I doubt it. Politics aside, Donald Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, has done his job superbly. He has done everything asked of him with great success. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way.

I agree with this in one sense. The "shock and awe" tactical bombing was brilliant, though some of the credit goes to Franks for assertation of targets and the technology at our disposal. He also kept Isreal completely out of both with the assistance of Powell and for that I am thankful.

However this particular issue is not a political issue, this is about the human rights of prisoners of war something which we went over there blaring our trumpets that we were going to fix over in Iraq. It's pretty obvious to me anyways that Joe Average in Iraq is thankful for what we have done but for the rest of the world, the trumpets of morality we were blaring in Iraq sound pretty off key now. It puts a sour taste to the democracy and freedom this administration promised.

For all this stuff I am reading and hearing on the news why would anyone want to vote for Bush? My goodness I am quite sure the youth will not vote for him because if i could he doesnt have my vote period. I dont want to be drafted to fight for someones personal beef against another country. I don't for all the wars we have had in the past 100 years people still don't learn. Bush most not be re-elected but John Kerry isn't the best choice out there so the lesser of the two evils...

The Republicans are all about "personal responsibility" (or so they claim). It's high time that Rumsfeld fell on his sword. Whether he ordered it or not, he is in charge, he is responsible. Time to go, Rummy.

That's BS. I showed you an article by your "highly respected" LA Times Editor that printed faked anti-war photos from his field journalists. You don't believe for a second that the LA Times Editor should be fired for the corruption of his employees, just like I don't believe a very valuable member of the Bush Administration should step down because of what some twisted minded soldiers did to prisoners when they were alone with them.

Yes, the system tells you that only Bush or Kerry can win. So you must limit your choices to those two as you've been programmed, Good Citizen.

... for all the wars we have had in the past 100 years people still don't learn.Don't believe the "war is always bad" brigade. Many countries, yours included, have fought very noble and necessary wars in the past century.

Time will tell whether this current war is seen in that category. It doesn't look good now.

IF it was a policy to humiliate these prisoners as a tactic to loosen their tongues, and IF Rumsfeld signed off on it, then he should be held responsible for it.I got the impression from the article (or maybe a different one) that Rumsfeld signed off on a policy of humiliation for high-level Al-Qaida prisoners to be performed by highly trained CIA people. Then he signed off on an expanded program sometime during the Iraq war, and that this spun out of control because it wasn't being done by the specialists. I'm guessing there is some element of truth in this, and it'll come down to Rumsfeld signing off on something less than what happened at Abu Ghraib, but instead of trying to figure out nuance and what exactly he did approve/condone versus what we should approve/condone, both sides will turn it into a partisan, black and white, Rumsfeld approved torture/no he didn't argument.

I disagree strongly with this statement. He sent in a force too small and too lightly armed and armored to win the peace. He conveniently winked at systemic violations of the Geneva convention. He managed to do an admirable job in a few months of helping to undermine a system of alliances that 50+ years worth of Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, worked to build up, and oh, btw, things have only become worse.

Rumsfeld has bollocksed up just about everything he's touched, and frankly, he should go, the abuse scandals notwithstanding.

The force-size was perfect. We finished major combat operations in less than a month, removed the Baath Party from power and had historically minimal loss of life to both American, enemy, and civilian personnel. Hell, they didn't even get a chance to detonate their oil fields that were all rigged for self-sabotage. The decision to send in special forces to secure those oil fields in one of the main reasons that Iraq is back up to pre-war levels already is on the fast track to it's normal production levels. Once that money starts flowing in, things will only get better. It's not flowing in to Saddam's pocket, but the infrastructure of their economy.

The rest of your argument is pure political fluff. 50+ years of alliances gone? We all know that the French and Germans and Russians had too much at stake financially with Saddam Hussein for anybody to believe that the USA didn't try and try again with regards to the UN. Unless they are force fed anti-American bi-polarism by the news media....

So it wasn't his idea to GO GO GO now, rather than wait for the divsion that was supposed to deploy through Turkey?

The Turks voted in Parliament whether or not to allow us passage. The vote failed by 19 votes. While it passed with a majority, it required 66% to pass.

The ironic part of that is that the "Western Friendly, EU hopeful" party voted almost completely against the passage of US troops (to gain favor with the EU who of course, talked a great talk to Turkey about joining the EU prior to the vote and then snubbed them completely after the vote).

The pro-Islamic party that took office just months before the vote voted almost unanimously on the passage of American troops.

But once the vote was passed, what exactly was our Secretary of State supposed to do? When a democratically elected parliament speaks, it speaks. It's say is final. Or did you have something else in mind, like, invading Turkey to gain that foothold?

Or did you have something else in mind, like, invading Turkey to gain that foothold?

If we had the same concerns for the Kurds that we said we did, we might have thought about doing such a thing. We forgive Turkey for killing Kurds though, just not Saddam.

If we had the same concerns for the Kurds that we said we did, we might have thought about doing such a thing. We forgive Turkey for killing Kurds though, just not Saddam.This is partly true, but the level of oppression is very different. Also, Kurdistan covers parts of Syria and Iran too, so include them along with Turkey.

If we had the same concerns for the Kurds that we said we did, we might have thought about doing such a thing. We forgive Turkey for killing Kurds though, just not Saddam.

The Turks lost 35,000, mostly civilians to terror strikes from the Kurds PKK terror organization (which is not defunct because the Turks destroyed it and put it's leader in prison). Excuse me.

Yes, the system tells you that only Bush or Kerry can win. So you must limit your choices to those two as you've been programmed, Good Citizen.
An I suppose your a free mind not bound to the same rules as everyone else? Sorry bro this is not the matrix with sentials and agents.... nope your not the one, two or three your just like everyone else.

I'm guessing there is some element of truth in this, and it'll come down to Rumsfeld signing off on something less than what happened at Abu Ghraib, but instead of trying to figure out nuance and what exactly he did approve/condone versus what we should approve/condone, both sides will turn it into a partisan, black and white, Rumsfeld approved torture/no he didn't argument.

Well for what it's worth the 140ish articles of the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war are pretty specific in what you cannot do. If Rumsfeld did sign off on anything that breaches any of them he is guilty of war crimes. There is little left to interpretation or grey area in this instance.

That's BS. I showed you an article by your "highly respected" LA Times Editor that printed faked anti-war photos from his field journalists. You don't believe for a second that the LA Times Editor should be fired for the corruption of his employees, just like I don't believe a very valuable member of the Bush Administration should step down because of what some twisted minded soldiers did to prisoners when they were alone with them.

Editors have resigned over less. One at the Daily Mirror just did.

The force-size was perfect. We finished major combat operations in less than a month, removed the Baath Party from power and had historically minimal loss of life to both American, enemy, and civilian personnel. Hell, they didn't even get a chance to detonate their oil fields that were all rigged for self-sabotage. The decision to send in special forces to secure those oil fields in one of the main reasons that Iraq is back up to pre-war levels already is on the fast track to it's normal production levels. Once that money starts flowing in, things will only get better. It's not flowing in to Saddam's pocket, but the infrastructure of their economy.

The rest of your argument is pure political fluff. 50+ years of alliances gone? We all know that the French and Germans and Russians had too much at stake financially with Saddam Hussein for anybody to believe that the USA didn't try and try again with regards to the UN. Unless they are force fed anti-American bi-polarism by the news media....

The force size was right for a blitzkrieg invasion. It wasn't anywhere close to enough to provide security, which might have nipped much of this "insurgency" in the bud.

Any way you slice it, our folks in the field are paying the price for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's errors.

The Turks lost 35,000, mostly civilians to terror strikes from the Kurds PKK terror organization (which is not defunct because the Turks destroyed it and put it's leader in prison). Excuse me.

Terrorist groups operating in Iraq were also based in the Kurdish areas. Go figure.

An I suppose your a free mind not bound to the same rules as everyone else? Sorry bro this is not the matrix with sentials and agents.... nope your not the one, two or three your just like everyone else.

I certainly don't buy into the mass-marketed idea that I only have two choices for President, if that is what you are asking. Of course, most people believe what they are told and won't consider anything outside of those two. Media is ran by big business. Big business greases up both parties. There is a lot of money and power banked on keeping us limited to a "two-party system." Refusing to believe you have any other choice means their plan is working.

The way I see it if I vote for a third party I am in essence wasting a vote.

The force size was right for a blitzkrieg invasion. It wasn't anywhere close to enough to provide security, which might have nipped much of this "insurgency" in the bud.

Any way you slice it, our folks in the field are paying the price for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's errors.

As stated, the "insurgency" is a small shia uprising led by Al Sadr that is not recognized by the other top Shia clerics (I think there are between 20-50 of them at his level). The rest are foreign fighters and Sunni Triangle villains.

Again, if you knew there were so many terrorists ni the country, why did you claim the exact opposite prior to our soldiers going into Iraq? Your (the collective "you") argument rarely makes much sense.

I have been in the anti-Rumsfield camp for some time. It is my perception that the credit for the brilliant Iraqi War victory goes to Franks. The Dept of Defense then either was under some false assumptions or couldn't shift policies. There are a lot of good things happening in Iraq that don't make news but they (the DoDdd, not the military) did underestimate the violent nature of the factions involved and in thinking that the long-running three-way civil war would go away.

As far as presidential/administration choices, Tekneek is right.

I certainly don't buy into the mass-marketed idea that I only have two choices for President, if that is what you are asking. Of course, most people believe what they are told and won't consider anything outside of those two. Media is ran by big business. Big business greases up both parties. There is a lot of money and power banked on keeping us limited to a "two-party system." Refusing to believe you have any other choice means their plan is working.
If you want a less arrogant and less far-reaching govt., certainly don't vote Democrat or Republican. This applies to Congress more than any other branches - they make the laws and control the purse strings. Send a message that less govt. interventions into every world's problems, less govt. intrusions into private and business lives, and less govt. money-grabs for questionable causes are the way to go. Vote Libertarian or at least those libertarian-minded candidates who feel that the Federal Govt. should not, cannot and ought not to solve everyone's problems or every problem in the world.<!-- / message -->

There are a lot of good things happening in Iraq that don't make news but they (the DoDdd, not the military) did underestimate the violent nature of the factions involved and in thinking that the long-running three-way civil war would go away.

But, you have to admit, that nobody ever said things were going to get easy. I'm pretty sure that President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks always said that there was lots of difficult road ahead. Of course, Bush was talking about the War on Terror, Donald Rumsfeld the different operations thus far, and Franks with regards primarily to Iraq.

These kind of debates may seem to get a little out of hand , but they will be representative of the kind of debate that will happen all over this nation in the coming months. There will be a serious backlash to the blind defense of this administration as a reaction to 911 and the following armed conflicts. Not sure it will mean enough questions to put Kerry in office, but I am expecting the uglyest election in my lifetime for sure.

The Turks voted in Parliament whether or not to allow us passage. The vote failed by 19 votes. While it passed with a majority, it required 66% to pass.

The ironic part of that is that the "Western Friendly, EU hopeful" party voted almost completely against the passage of US troops (to gain favor with the EU who of course, talked a great talk to Turkey about joining the EU prior to the vote and then snubbed them completely after the vote).

The pro-Islamic party that took office just months before the vote voted almost unanimously on the passage of American troops.

But once the vote was passed, what exactly was our Secretary of State supposed to do? When a democratically elected parliament speaks, it speaks. It's say is final. Or did you have something else in mind, like, invading Turkey to gain that foothold?
That division did deploy in Iraq...through the gulf. After the shooting war was over, or very close to it. I am suggesting that IF we had waited another month or two, we might very well have been even more successful than we were. A lot of the casualties were inflicted on our support troops moving to and from the front lines. I am also suggesting that with that additional division on the ground, there may have been more troops to provide security. Then again providing security didn't seem to be high on the agenda.

I am suggesting that IF we had waited another month or two, we might very well have been even more successful than we were. A lot of the casualties were inflicted on our support troops moving to and from the front lines. I am also suggesting that with that additional division on the ground, there may have been more troops to provide security. Then again providing security didn't seem to be high on the agenda.

So 2 more months of keeping 250,000 troops on high alert and mobilized on an enemy border would have been your chess move? And you think that would have been the even more successful way to go? I disagree, but I can't argue with monday morning quarterbacking.

Sorry Dutch,

But Glengoyne has support here from even the military. This is from the weekly standard, quoting General Sanchez last September.

"So the present shortage of troops in Iraq is not a surprise. It was predictable. Without the hoped-for second international division and without a usable force of Iraqis, security in Iraq has fallen almost entirely to an American force too small to handle the job. The stresses we're under now cannot be chalked up to the "fog of war" or simple bad luck. Last September General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq, was asked if he had enough troops. He responded that he would not have enough to handle a new wave of conflict in Iraq. "If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt," he told reporters in Baghdad, " . . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for." Eight months later, that conflict erupted, and, sure enough, there weren't enough troops to handle it."

Now, he is not saying they didn't have enough to start with; but he clearly knew they didn't have enough if things went awry. Rumsfeld obviously had no contingency plan for that. And that has cost some Americans their lives unnecessarily.

"If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt," he told reporters in Baghdad, " . . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for."

Eight months later, that conflict erupted, and, sure enough, there weren't enough troops to handle it."

Did the article mention that General Sanchez knew in 8 months more violence would erupt? A decision was obviously made that the troop levels were good at that point in time in a quickly changing dynamic landscape.

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have always stated publicly that they don't make the decision on troop levels, but it's up to the commanders in the field. If they need more, they get them. That's what they say. Obviously, the only time Rumsfeld was insistant on a certain ammount was for the major combat operation itself, where he said 500,000 troops were not needed to overthrown the Baath Party. That was true. After that point, it was up to his field commanders, including Sanchez (if he is a field commander, I do not know).

Well, if you are not thinking at least 4 steps ahead, then your planning is terrible, and you don't get a thumbs up in my books (I think even a fourth grader could have predicted the real possibility of an uprising). Do these guys not read history books? And regardless of what Bush and Rumsfeld might say "publicly" (what else are they going to say?), they have the final say on troop levels (and a lot of the thinking is based on politics). Go ahead and blame it on the generals if you want. But will anybody in the administration actually take responsibility for something . . . anything? Can't someone just say we goofed? Is that too much to ask?

In the end, regardless of the military commanders' roles, the final and absolute responsibility falls on the shoulders of the secretary of defense and the commander in chief, period.

Here's pretty much how it goes:

RumsfeldBush: so, do we have enough troops?
Gen. Sanchez: not if there is an internal conflict.
Rumsfeld/Bush: what is the likelihood of that?
Gen. Sanchez: could happen. (this had to be at least the answer)
Rumsfeld/Bush: well, let's get some more guys in there (ended up having about 8 months to do it)(this was the correct response)

Instead, the likely and incorrect response was: Hmmm. let's just go with what we got, we don't want to ruffle any more feathers right now. Or instead, they didn't ask the question, which to me is even worse.

"If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt," he told reporters in Baghdad, " . . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for." Eight months later, that conflict erupted, and, sure enough, there weren't enough troops to handle it."But we did handle the conflict, and by at most raising troop levels by 15,000 who were already in the region but scheduled to be rotated out. Fallujah has been stabilized and appears to be less antagonistic than previously (because we killed many of the hard-line fighters, Baath and foreign, that were targeting coalition forces and then by allying with the majority group of Sunnis who aren't happy with US Occupation but don't want to take up arms against us) and Shiite opposition to al-Sadr has enabled us to take previously impossible action around hloy sites, specifically in Najaf, while also isolating the small portion of Shiites who were fighting against the US (and killing a good number of them.) Maybe we could have more effectively handled the problems with more troops, but we did exceptionally well with the number there and we didn't get to see what problems and snafus would arise from more troops, so I think this Monday Morning Quarterbacking is a little off the mark.

I'm constantly amazed by people who think fighting and warfare can EVER be predictable by-the-numbers kind of excercise.

I agree with Bishop. Even though it would have been nice to have extra troops in place (personally, I would have liked to see the Administration finish business in Afghanistan before going into Iraq), the ones that are there have done an EXCEPTIONAL job. War is hell, and regardless of how well "planned" an operation is, unexpected SNAFUs are normal operating procedures.

Maybe we could have more effectively handled the problems with more troops,

Well, I think you just answered our question and made our point. I think when American lives are lost, it isn't Monday Morning Quarterbacking, it is grave misjudgment and worthy of inquiry and serious analysis. Are the troops still doing a good job? Absolutely. But they could have been done better by the administration. That is all I am saying.

And although things are unpredictable, what would have been wrong with taking the cautious approach, anyways?

Well, I think you just answered our question and made our point. I think when American lives are lost, it isn't Monday Morning Quarterbacking, it is grave misjudgment and worthy of inquiry and serious analysis. Are they still doing a good job? Absolutely. But they could have been done better by the administration.

Based on recent history, I'd much rather have a Republican administration calling the shots during a shooting war than a Democratic one.

35 years is recent history?

Well, I think you just answered our question and made our point. I think when American lives are lost, it isn't Monday Morning Quarterbacking, it is grave misjudgment and worthy of inquiry and serious analysis. Are the troops still doing a good job? Absolutely. But they could have been done better by the administration. That is all I am saying.

And although things are unpredictable, what would have been wrong with taking the cautious approach, anyways?I think you missed my point. While the recent events probably would have been more effectively handled with more troops, we would have had to have those troops in Iraq for the past 12 months, with all the associated costs (money, where to get the troops from, possible increased resentment from Iraqis among others.) You're ignoring the costs and focusing on the benefits alone.

You're also focusing on Rumsfeld alone. He has said publicly that troop levels in Iraq are up to the commanders on the ground, and if they ask for more troops we will provide them. I haven't seen anything to contradict this, so it hasn't been just Bush or Rumsfeld who decided to use a lighter force. They (in particular Rumsfeld) has pushed for it, but if General Franks or Sanchez wants more troops, they'll get them (and did recently when we increased levels by 15-20,000) so the lack of any request before now would seem to indicate that they agreed with the plan.

Another thing that makes me more liable to side with Rumsfeld is that people have been attacking the plans as having too few troops many times now (Afghanistan, the war part of Iraq, now during the peacekeeping part) - and in the first two instances he's largely been proven right, so he's got more credibility than his opponents (who have pretty much been the same people making those arguments all 3 times.) Here's Seymour Hersh attacking the Administration's plan a week into the war(hxxp://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1)Rumsfeld simply failed to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare. He put Army and Marine units in the field with few reserves and an insufficient number of tanks and other armored vehicles. Supply lines—inevitably, they say—have become overextended and vulnerable to attack, creating shortages of fuel, water, and ammunition. Pentagon officers spoke contemptuously of the Administration’s optimistic press briefings. “It’s a stalemate now,” the former intelligence official told me. “It’s going to remain one only if we can maintain our supply lines. The carriers are going to run out of jdams” Much of the supply of Tomahawk guided missiles has been expended. “The Marines are worried as hell, they’re all committed, with no reserves, and they’ve never run the lavs”—light armored vehicles—“as long and as hard” as they have in Iraq. There are serious maintenance problems as well. “The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements come.”

The 4th Infantry Division—the Army’s most modern mechanized division—whose equipment spent weeks waiting in the Mediterranean before being diverted to the overtaxed American port in Kuwait, is not expected to be operational until the end of April. The 1st Cavalry Division, in Texas, is ready to ship out, the planner said, but by sea it will take twenty-three days to reach Kuwait. “All we have now is front-line positions,” the former intelligence official told me. “Everything else is missing.”

Last week, plans for an assault on Baghdad had stalled, and the six Republican Guard divisions expected to provide the main Iraqi defense had yet to have a significant engagement with American or British soldiers. The shortages forced Central Command to “run around looking for supplies,” the former intelligence official said. The immediate goal, he added, was for the Army and Marine forces “to hold tight and hope that the Republican Guard divisions get chewed up” by bombing. The planner agreed, saying, “The only way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle—that the Republican Guards commit themselves,” and thus become vulnerable to American air strikes.

“Hope,” a retired four-star general subsequently told me, “is not a course of action.” Last Thursday, the Army’s senior ground commander, Lieutenant General William S. Wallace, said to reporters, “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against.” (One senior Administration official commented to me, speaking of the Iraqis, “They’re not scared. Ain’t it something? They’re not scared.”) At a press conference the next day, Rumsfeld and Myers were asked about Wallace’s comments, and defended the war plan—Myers called it “brilliant” and “on track.” They pointed out that the war was only a little more than a week old.This was not an isolated journalist, lots of those opposed to the war were saying similar things ("quagmire"), and they were proven wrong, just as in Afghanistan. Maybe the 3rd time's the charm, but forgive me when I'm very skeptical of their claims this time.

Based on recent history, I'd much rather have a Republican administration calling the shots during a shooting war than a Democratic one.

What is your definition of recent history. You do know that FDR and Wilson successfully navigated the US through WWI and WWII, both military successes and the biggest wars the US has been involved in modern history. They were Democrats.

What is your definition of recent history. You do know that FDR and Wilson successfully navigated the US through WWI and WWII, both military successes and the biggest wars the US has been involved in modern history. They were Democrats.I'd guess post-Vietnam (or maybe including it.) The Democratic Party today is very different than the one Wilson/FDR/JFK were in. Wilson/JFK wanted to use American force to promote American values abroad, now its the Republicans who are saying this. And, if we're nitpicking, I'm not sure that Wilson did that well on the overall issue of WWI.

I think you missed my point. While the recent events probably would have been more effectively handled with more troops, we would have had to have those troops in Iraq for the past 12 months, with all the associated costs (money, where to get the troops from, possible increased resentment from Iraqis among others.) You're ignoring the costs and focusing on the benefits alone.

Actually, I did focus on the costs -- the human cost, needlessly lost lives for not enough troop strength.

And I think you can at least say the administration should admit their mistake. As for American values abroad, you do know Bush ran on a platform against using troops abroad for nation building, etc. Now 9/11 changed that, but remember there only remaining reason for going into Iraq was to depose a murderer and free the Iraqi people - nation building at its finest.

Got to go now, but I am sure we can agree on one thing - Pats are the best. Do you think we could put Belichick in charge of this mess? I think we would do alright.

I think you missed my point. While the recent events probably would have been more effectively handled with more troops, we would have had to have those troops in Iraq for the past 12 months, with all the associated costs (money, where to get the troops from, possible increased resentment from Iraqis among others.) You're ignoring the costs and focusing on the benefits alone.

You're also focusing on Rumsfeld alone. He has said publicly that troop levels in Iraq are up to the commanders on the ground, and if they ask for more troops we will provide them. I haven't seen anything to contradict this, so it hasn't been just Bush or Rumsfeld who decided to use a lighter force. They (in particular Rumsfeld) has pushed for it, but if General Franks or Sanchez wants more troops, they'll get them (and did recently when we increased levels by 15-20,000) so the lack of any request before now would seem to indicate that they agreed with the plan.

Another thing that makes me more liable to side with Rumsfeld is that people have been attacking the plans as having too few troops many times now (Afghanistan, the war part of Iraq, now during the peacekeeping part) - and in the first two instances he's largely been proven right, so he's got more credibility than his opponents (who have pretty much been the same people making those arguments all 3 times.) Here's Seymour Hersh attacking the Administration's plan a week into the war(hxxp://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1)[/i]This was not an isolated journalist, lots of those opposed to the war were saying similar things ("quagmire"), and they were proven wrong, just as in Afghanistan. Maybe the 3rd time's the charm, but forgive me when I'm very skeptical of their claims this time.[/size][/font]
I won't argue with pretty much anything you have said here. My criticism of Rumsfeld was that the invasion began with his authorization with fewer troops than were required to defeat the regime, protect our lines of supply, and provide stability once we were successful. If we had waited a month or two...we would have had an entire additional division to handle some of those responsibilities. Yes the invasion plan worked exceedingly well, and the Doom and Gloom reported by Hersh and pretty much all of the media that second week was pretty well exposed just a few days later. My point was that a lot of our casualties were our behind the lines support troops, and if we had had the man-power in place to protect them the success would have been more complete. As it was I felt the war planners decided that losses to our support forces were acceptable given the logistics of protecting them.

Actually, I did focus on the costs -- the human cost, needlessly lost lives for not enough troop strength.This cost-benefit ratio isn't something easily discussed, but you're going down that road so we might as well acknowledge it. If we doubled military spending, it would probably save some of the lives of our troops, but we've decided it's not worth it. We don't have unlimited resources, so there need to be decisions made about how much training/equipment soldiers get, how many troops we send over there. So in this specific case, we have two sides; troop levels as they were or as you thought they should have been (I'll assume you are saying we should have had the 135,000 we have now versus the 115-120,000 previously. If that's wrong and you wanted a much larger force, correct me.) On the one hand we have costs associated with the smaller force, which are probably a few more Americans killed or wounded (I don't think it would have been that much a difference because I'm guessing the increase would have been largely in Reserves and the like, not the more combat-ready Marines and others that have done much of the protracted fighting.) Then, OTOH, we have the costs associated with a larger force - the monetary cost of increased pay for the troops, their supplies, etc which detracts from other stuff the DoD can do, the fact that we have ~20,000 more troops in Iraq (while most troops agree with what we are doing and feel it is necessary, they'd rather be at home) and possibly increased resentment from Iraqis because of a larger occupation force along with any unanticipated costs. While I certainly hope we have as few casualties as possible, and I think it would be pretty callous to put a price on a soldiers life, I'm not sure if the cost-benefit ratio would have been worth it. Especially when considering that advocates for more troops were throwing out numbers like 250,000-500,000.And I think you can at least say the administration should admit their mistake.While I think many of the attacks on the Administration are exaggerated and wrong, the fact they never admit any mistakes isn't something I like. As for American values abroad, you do know Bush ran on a platform against using troops abroad for nation building, etc. Now 9/11 changed that, Exactly. I really disliked Bush pre-9/11 and I still think he is a mediocre to bad President in a lot of domestic areas, but I agree strongly with the neoconservative approach to foreign relations (which is really just what used to be called a liberal approach.)remember there only remaining reason for going into Iraq was to depose a murderer and free the Iraqi people - nation building at its finest.Well, no, that isn't. The main public rationale was to take pre-emptive action before Saddam became an imminent threat. Sanctions were working better than we and everyone else thought on preventing him from developing WMD's, although they were pretty porous and a number of countries were flouting them. But it was quite clear that the sanctions weren't working as intended (either make Saddam change his ways or hurt the Iraqi people enough they deposed Saddam.) And support for these was eroding among the UN countries. So in the end, we could have removed sanctions (which would almost certainly have meant his resuming WMD programs), struggled to maintain some sanctions and kept enforcing the no fly zones while hoping for a miracle and the Baath Party being removed from party (the only group that had the money and the hatred were the Iranian ayatollahs, so the successor government would have likely been civil war and then an Islamic theocracy emerging in part of the country, and that civil war would have probably meant we got involved or else Iraq turned into one of those battlegrounds so common in Africa where every nearby nation funds militias and tries to gain control of resources), or take out Saddam, hopefully with UN Support. This last option could have been done now or put off like North Korea was and look at our lack of options there now. While the neoconservative line of thinking where a functioning fairly pro-US semi-democratic Iraq would have a ripple effect throughout the Middle East has been pushed more recently, I don't think that was the main reason why we went to war. While helping the Iraqi people is a great thing, and opponents of the War should admit that it is, that wasn't a part of the reason we went to war. There are plenty of other places we could do that but don't. That doesn't mean people should belittle what we have done (and the numbers on the ground bear out that the average Iraqi is better off than a year and a half ago, and has a much better future.) And the opportunity to set up a model government in the middle of the Arab world that will destabilize other regimes is certainly there (and destabilization is a good thing. The status quo was unacceptable when it led to America being attacked,) but I really don't think we went to war for that. Nevertheless, opponents of the war need to realize that even if some of the initial rationalizations appear exaggerated or wrong, Iraq is now the central battleground in the War on Terror, and success is our only option. Pulling out would lead directly to the worst-case scenario they were saying would occur if we went to Iraq, while our success would be beneficial to us, the Iraqis and the world as a whole. Sorry if I got a little long-winded there.Got to go now, but I am sure we can agree on one thing - Pats are the best. Do you think we could put Belichick in charge of this mess? I think we would do alright.Belichick actually has some similarities to Rumsfeld. Both are no nonsense guys who say things bluntly, have a secretive nature and, IMO, both have proven most of their critics wrong. I can't wait for the upcoming season, where unlike 2002 we'll be prepared to defend the title.

I won't argue with pretty much anything you have said here. My criticism of Rumsfeld was that the invasion began with his authorization with fewer troops than were required to defeat the regime, protect our lines of supply, and provide stability once we were successful. If we had waited a month or two...we would have had an entire additional division to handle some of those responsibilities. Yes the invasion plan worked exceedingly well, and the Doom and Gloom reported by Hersh and pretty much all of the media that second week was pretty well exposed just a few days later. My point was that a lot of our casualties were our behind the lines support troops, and if we had had the man-power in place to protect them the success would have been more complete. As it was I felt the war planners decided that losses to our support forces were acceptable given the logistics of protecting them.The first problem is that the people making the plan anticipated a longer, more protracted fight. A lot of the resistance we have faced in the last year has been from groups that sort of melted away instead of fighting us then. (That's why the recent events in Fallujah and with al-Sadr were probably beneficial. A lot of the people who were setting off roadside bombs and conducting sniping operations which are hard to fight against basically came out and fought from positions against our forces. They failed at turning it into a popular uprising and then we had the hardcore violent anti-American forces in pitched fighting against Marines/the army, which is what they do best. While the short term rise in American casualties aren't something to be happy about, seeing kill ratios of 10-1, 20-1 is probably better for us in the long run than having these people conducting guerrila/terrorist tactics against us.) The other unconventional thing about the war plan was how we isolated and then bypassed hotspots. So I'm not really sure how many of the people killed behind the front lines were in support units versus actually fighting in these areas after the main thrust had moved on. (Either way, I think the other sections of our armed forces would do well to take the Marine approach of everyone a soldier first in training. I don't think we'll ever again fight a conventional war along the lines of WWII, and there really isn't a distinction between soldiers and support personnel, but that's a longer term change in thinking.) Overall though, I thought that we had many, many, fewer casualties than pretty much everyone predicted (in part because many of the people we expected to fight us then chose to fade away and then conduct guerrila operations. How much of a role this played I'm not sure. Also in part because we didn't have chemical/biological weapons used against us.)

In the end, I'm sure the plan wasn't perfect, but I think given the realities of warfare and how unreliable our intel proved to be, it was pretty amazing. And, yeah, they might have decided that certain losses were acceptable, but I think every commander has had to do that, so I'm not willing to condemn them over that.

As stated, the "insurgency" is a small shia uprising led by Al Sadr that is not recognized by the other top Shia clerics (I think there are between 20-50 of them at his level). The rest are foreign fighters and Sunni Triangle villains.

Again, if you knew there were so many terrorists ni the country, why did you claim the exact opposite prior to our soldiers going into Iraq? Your (the collective "you") argument rarely makes much sense.

First of all, I am not part of your straw-man group. I am not "you". I have to admit that I had mixed feelings prior to the war. I had very little trust of the Bush administration, but I believed Colin Powell. I didn't think he'd stand in front of the entire world on that fateful day in January and tell a series of carefully crafted whoppers to the American people and the entire UN Security Council. I was wrong in trusting him, and from what I saw of Colin Powell yesterday on Meet the Press, he was embarrassed by the lies. I don't know if you saw the interview yesterday, but it reeked of a deeply humiliated man trying hard to salvage the shattered remnants of his reputation.

As for your main assertion, there may have well been "terrorists" in Iraq. After all, this administration has labeled teachers as terrorists. I'm sure there were teachers in Iraq, prior to March, 2003, ergo, according to some Republicans, there were "terrorists" in Iraq. Heck, according to Dubya's low standards, *I* am a terrorist, because I don't totally drink the Bush Kool-Aid and he's made it clear we're either with him or the terrorists. :rolleyes:

The question is not whether there were "terrorists" in Iraq. The question is was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam prior to the war. The answer is no, there wasn't. Don't believe me? Even Bush has said there was no link. So has the CIA, so have several other administration officials (though Cheney seems to continue trying to put lipstick on that pig about every other time he speaks).

Now, at this time, I believe there is a connestion between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in relative chaos, which Iraq is at this point in time, unscrupulous men will not hold back, and those bent on seizing power illegally will not hesitate. I firmly believe there is an Al Qaeda connection in Iraq now. Why wouldn't there be? It's a place where it's virtually open season on killing American and other Western soldiers and contractors. But remember, we created this mess...and we don't seem to know how to fix it.

As for your main assertion, there may have well been "terrorists" in Iraq. After all, this administration has labeled teachers as terrorists. I'm sure there were teachers in Iraq, prior to March, 2003, ergo, according to some Republicans, there were "terrorists" in Iraq. Heck, according to Dubya's low standards, *I* am a terrorist, because I don't totally drink the Bush Kool-Aid and he's made it clear we're either with him or the terrorists. :rolleyes: I'm opposed to pre-emptively rolling eyes in political discussions. And way to take one stupid joke by a mid-level member of the administration and extrapolate it into a blanket condemnation of everyone.The question is not whether there were "terrorists" in Iraq. The question is was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam prior to the war. The answer is no, there wasn't. Don't believe me? Even Bush has said there was no link. So has the CIA, so have several other administration officials (though Cheney seems to continue trying to put lipstick on that pig about every other time he speaks).No. We're not fighting Al-Qaeda, we're fighting the terrorists who share the same mindset of al-Qaeda. This includes Lashkar-e-Taiba, Ansar al-Islam (partially funded by Saddam and linked to al-Qaida), the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades (Saddam gave 20,000 a suicide bomber) and every other group extending all the way to groups like FARC. And by the numbers we're doing it pretty well, as terrorist attacks in the last year were at their lowest levels since the late 1960's. And I love the scare quotes around terrorists ;) Also, I'm not sure I'm ready to believe them, but the Czech government continues to stand by th Atta/Iraqi meeting in Prague and released new information last week. EDIT - Forgot to include that all these groups are connected in a sort of underground way. Al-Qaeda itself doesn't really work as one set group, but as a venture capital firm that provides money and logistics support to other terrorist organizations.

ummm, well about the Rumsfeld lied part....looks like the train is just now pulling out of the station. I believe a lot more will jump on board before it reaches full exposure and ends with A rumsfeld step down and a new president trying to salvage relations with the world.

Yeah, Newsweek is breaking a similar story (there goes that "liberal media" again). Check it out:

hxxp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

The administration can parse words all it wants, but give it a read. I suggest you click on Colin Powell's memo in response to the administration decision on interrogation techniques. And Gonzalez's memo on the potential that Bush could be prosecuted in American courts for war crimes for violating the Geneva Convention.

Really astonishing stuff. Y'all keep supporting Bush and Rumsfeld, though. Because you will be the only ones around November of this year.

I am sure this is the tip of the iceberg; more still to come.

Man, Watergate is starting to look like a traffic violation compared to this stuff. I feel bad for Kerry, he will have to do some damage control when he gets in office.

The administration can parse words all it wants, but give it a read. I suggest you click on Colin Powell's memo in response to the administration decision on interrogation techniques. And Gonzalez's memo on the potential that Bush could be prosecuted in American courts for war crimes for violating the Geneva Convention.So we've got a memo detailing a worst case scenario where uncertain terms under the Geneva Convention and War Crimes Act could be expanded to try administration officials if they went along with a proposed plan for dealing with Afghanistan. Then we've got Colin Powell arguing against this and saying we should allow for individual review of Taliban cases. All we're missing is the final decision, where President Bush and Rumsfeld ignore Powell and proceed with the previous policy, and evidence that we carried out that policy and it was in fact in serious breach of the Geneva Convention (there are enough vague references and a few seemingly innocous things prohibited, so just violating it isn't enough.) Oh wait, none of those three happened, as we find out in the last paragraph.In the end, after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Qaeda fighters would not be given prisoner of war status under the conventions. It is a rendering that Administration lawyers believed would protect U.S. interrogators or their superiors in Washington from being subjected to prosecutions under the War Crimes Act based on their treatment of the prisoners. I'm sticking with what I said in my first post in this here thread. "it'll come down to Rumsfeld signing off on something less than what happened at Abu Ghraib, but instead of trying to figure out nuance and what exactly he did approve/condone versus what we should approve/condone, both sides will turn it into a partisan, black and white, Rumsfeld approved torture/no he didn't argument."<!-- / message -->

Yeah, Newsweek is breaking a similar story (there goes that "liberal media" again). Check it out:

hxxp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

The administration can parse words all it wants, but give it a read. I suggest you click on Colin Powell's memo in response to the administration decision on interrogation techniques. And Gonzalez's memo on the potential that Bush could be prosecuted in American courts for war crimes for violating the Geneva Convention.

Really astonishing stuff. Y'all keep supporting Bush and Rumsfeld, though. Because you will be the only ones around November of this year.

I am sure this is the tip of the iceberg; more still to come.

Man, Watergate is starting to look like a traffic violation compared to this stuff. I feel bad for Kerry, he will have to do some damage control when he gets in office.
Then again this could be just an old reference to an old advisory memo well before the war in Iraq even started, brought up now to lead people to believe that it applies to the situation at hand. You suggested we read Powell's response...You do realize that the Administration went with option B....the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict at hand. If Rumsfeld does resign it won't be because of this memo. This memo is pretty well meaningless.

The point is, absent Bush's self-interested granting of an exemption from the Geneva Convention, he was well aware that he was authorizing potential violations of the Geneva Convention. So what we have is knowledge of potential violations (and a thorough discussion of their ramifications), and then a loophole used by the Administration to get around it.

Combine this with the New Yorker article where we have the same tactics being authorized in Iraq against some prisoners who were nothing more than people picked up in street sweeps, and it all looks pretty bad.

I figure that a link to the Geneva Convention would be nice - hxxp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htmhe was well aware that he was authorizing potential violations of the Geneva Convention.It's very vague in a number of places. Let's take forms of coercion such as sleep deprivation, exposure to mild heat or cold, bright lights, or yelling insults at a prisoner. You can read the Geneva Convention and infer these are all illegal, (or that they are all legal). I wouldn't really consider any of them to be torture, and I think they have been used fairly often in our military for a long time. So where exactly do we draw the line, and for whom? This is a discussion we probably should have, and the fact the President was debating how far we could go isn't exactly shocking. Not all violations of the Geneva Convention are the same (to take one example, the release of the rest of the photos they showed to Congress would be a war crime) so I'm quite certain we've violated a number of statutes (how many depending on how strict you interpret the document) and I don't have much of a problem with that. If we actually have a policy where murdering/raping/torturing POW's is acceptable, that would be horrible. We don't, so in the end if the worst evidence against Rumsfeld is that he authorized tactics like sleep deprivation, don't be too surprised when support for Bush/Rumsfeld doesn't disappear like you/Flasch seem to think it will.

I was disturbed by this as I was reading it. But as I came to the end, I was beginning to realize some things, such as what BishopMVP and Glengoyne pointed out.

First, this appears to have to do with Afghanistan. I don't read every single news story on the war that comes out, so forgive me if I missed anything, but can someone tell me if:

A) Abu Ghraib prison is in Afghanistan? My understanding is it is in Iraq.
B) Taliban detainees captured in the conflict in Afghanistan are being held in Abu Ghraib prison? My understanding is that that prison holds Iraqi prisoners only.
C) the prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict being held at Guantanamo Bay, other than having their status unsettled and detained in seeming perpetuity, have been mistreated in any way? My understanding is that those prisoners are being treated as humanely as prisoners of war normally are and in accordance with the GPW.
D) the administration ever officially announced if its decision to apply the GPW to the conflict on Afghanistan also extended to Iraq?

I see a lot fo things to question here, but I am finding I don't view this any different than I did before. Which is that, reportedly, Rumsfeld and defense officials made some bad decisions to open up interrogation practices to unqualified individuals, resulting in violations of the GPW and in an environment which may have encouraged those in the chain of command to use extreme interrogation measures, and believe their actions were protected/ordered through the chain of command.

As was suggested above by either Bishop and Glengoyne, this still appears to be a problem of a bad judgement call by Rumsfeld, one which I would eventually like to see him resign over.

I am troubled over the necessity to discuss the proper treatment of prisoners in the War on Terror, but I recognize that people in power like this, especially when they control the greatest military force on the planet and are contending with a particularly ruthless and volatile contingent in al-Qaeda and other terrorist extremists, are faced with decisions like these.

It's my guess you will find memos of this sort in every administration going back to World War II, Republican and Democrat alike. Maybe even further back than that.

Did they use a loophole? It appears so--that is how they are detaining the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without announcing them as prisoners of war under the GPW.

But it seems to me that the administration has not made an active decision to ignore the GPW. In fact, it appears to be taking the GPW quite seriously in the Afghanistan conflict, so far as I know. And the actions at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq don't appear to be a result of an active administration policy to ignore the GPW, but that of a combination of bad judgement by Pentagon officials (including Rumsfeld) and unqualified interrogators taking a little leeway and going too far.

That's my take from what I understand so far, but I freely allow I may have misunderstood some things here. Like I said, I don't read every article out there, so for all I know, we have had massive war crime problems in Afghanistan as well.

CR

as far as i read, it was approving the techniques in Afghanistan, which were suspect, to be used in iraq. Regardless of your party affiliation this is a horrible horrible thing to have to defend. And Bishop, it doesnt matter what YOU consider to be torture or not, what DOES matter is what is on paper in the Convention. that is what WE, the moral highground, THE enemy of the "axis of Evil" hold ourselves to. then tell the world that this is the "right" way to treat your prisoners and then we dont.

Thousands of pictures and VIDEO, THOUSANDS.....7 kids didnt do this on their own. It goes probably not to bush, but likely to Rumsfeld, and Possibly even Cheney and they should be held accoutnable. Funny that the CIA pulled out of Abu Gharaib citing poor treatment and an impending snowstorm of allegations about the same time the Red Cross was Screaming that bad stuff was going on there. I have a feeling that "ditto heads" would defend this administration if they were caught doing something even worse than torturing civilians (and yes some militants i am sure), CIA got something rigtht this time.

IT is our duty, as members of this republic, this democracy, to always questin our leaders and our direction for if it is not scrutinized, and blindly followed, we may be following it all the way until the reason we started this country is forgotten and lost.

And Bishop, it doesnt matter what YOU consider to be torture or not, what DOES matter is what is on paper in the Convention. that is what WE, the moral highground, THE enemy of the "axis of Evil" hold ourselves to. then tell the world that this is the "right" way to treat your prisoners and then we dont.We've never follwed the Geneva Convention to the letter. We're never going to. And yet we still have the moral high ground. Because when Amnesty International came out with their report on the Iraq War, despite spending 90% of the report detailing American violations, all the worst things were in the other 10% of the report. Taking civilians hostage, torturing and murdering POW's, on and on versus sleep deprivation and shooting at mosques when we were being attacked from inside them. 95% of the countries treat their prisoners worse than we do, most much worse, while the other 5% are countries like Switzerland that aren't fighting a war. Did you happen to catch that once the program started in Iraq, we began getting lots and lots more actionable intelligence? These tactics, while abhorrent to you, saved American, Coalition and Iraqi lives. So where do we draw the line? IMO, killing, raping, mutilating POW's goes far beyond this line, what's being depicted in the pictures from Abu Ghraib goes beyond this line. Borderline tactics like exposure to mild heat or cold I will not only accept but encourage.Funny that the CIA pulled out of Abu Gharaib citing poor treatment and an impending snowstorm of allegations about the same time the Red Cross was Screaming that bad stuff was going on there. I have a feeling that "ditto heads" would defend this administration if they were caught doing something even worse than torturing civilians (and yes some militants i am sure), CIA got something rigtht this time.Ah yes, blindly believe sources from the CIA, the other group being implicated

Also, last time I checked, Abu Ghraib was seperated into two distinct camps, one with ordinary level Iraqis and the other with higher-level Baath party members, insurgents and foreign terrorists, and this wasn't going on in Camp A. So while some of the people at Abu Ghraib were innocent and civilians, they almost certainly aren't the ones we see in the pictures.we may be following it all the way until the reason we started this country is forgotten and lost.We've gone into a foreign country, removed a dictator murdering and terrorizing 20 million of his own people, greatly improved the standard of living of much of the country and built up the infrastructure to the best point it's ever been. All in just over a year when we were still fighting against guerrila and terrorist attacks. [cue Marlon Brando]The horror, the horror.[/Marlon Brando]

well, half of what you said is assumption, like the people in the pictures not being ordinary civilians. I beg you give me one of their names. right.

Cite the Amnesty international but then our gov't when given a report from red cross, which I deem equivalent, they dont even open the report until it begins to unravel. They dont care about it, and they certainly dont care about people from other cultures or countries.

Please REMEMBER when debating at least with me, that I was/am for the war at its start based on what you said, REMOVAL of a BRUTAL DICTATOR but our post war planning has made me say "jeez I wish we wouldve waited a little bit longer and spent a little bit more time thinking and planning for when its over." I feel pretty confident sending troops from S. Korea wasnt in the cards back then because as usual, this admin. is shortsighted, IMO.

Remember that quote, "All in just over a year." I believe youll be plugging bigger and bigger lengths of time in that there. Sic, "All in just over 5 years we've built a base and stabilized a country." Sic, "All in just over ten years we've continued to fight those that feel we shouldnt be here to help them." Unless of course there is a change in administration, which Im praying for cuz then it'll be...."All in just over 5 years NATO peacekeepers ahve been able to stabilize the country and hold the second election of democratically elected leaders." To me that sounds so much better.

Again, we boil it down to - FLasch186 = skeptic of the admin who wants to see truth and honesty from the top and feels we should do more to embrace our allies

BishopMVP = Staunch Republican who feels that whatever the Administration does is good for America and the right way to do things even if it means, stepping on some people (allies at the UN), bending some rules (Geneva), lying (Bush and Rumsfeld on WMD) so that an "end" can be met, etc.

Neither is right, neither is wrong...but at least here at the FOFC (a slap at the thread on FOFC politics) you can have intelligent debate with other people who seem to be smart as well. Only smart pople play FOF right?

...

Also, last time I checked, Abu Ghraib was seperated into two distinct camps, one with ordinary level Iraqis and the other with higher-level Baath party members, insurgents and foreign terrorists, and this wasn't going on in Camp A. So while some of the people at Abu Ghraib were innocent and civilians, they almost certainly aren't the ones we see in the pictures....
In many ways I understand the attraction to the notion that if all we have to do is strip down a bunch of bad guys and make them lie on top of each other and these guys will start to give us valid intelligence. It seems like all we have to do is humiliate them a little, and we can get some real benefit out of it. The problem is that we can't trade the honor of our nation for some short term intelligence gain. We have to treat the worst of prisoners with the best of care. We have to do that because it is freedom and justice we are trying to bring to Iraq isn't it? If Osama Bin Laden were held in one of those prisons, I wouldn't want to humiliate him either. I'd like to think we would treat him with care. Right up until his execution, that is.

I was all for going into Iraq. I am all for staying there as long as we need to. I am not okay with the way we treated some of the prisoners. I don't really think Rumsfeld was behind that treatment, but I am not comfortable with the way he and the pentagon handled the situation. It was beyond negligent to know that this had been going on, and to have not even read or even obtain a briefing on the report. The attitude with which he dealt with this issue is what gives me a problem with Rumsfeld.

well, half of what you said is assumption, like the people in the pictures not being ordinary civilians. I beg you give me one of their names. right.And if they were caught doing something even worse than torturing civilians (and yes some militants i am sure), CIA got something rigtht this time.Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. (I'm not saying your first quote isn't right, just that it's hypocritical.)
Cite the Amnesty international but then our gov't when given a report from red cross, which I deem equivalent, they dont even open the report until it begins to unravel.You got a link for the not even opening the report? I haven't seen that. They dont care about it, and they certainly dont care about people from other cultures or countries.Personally, I think (and I think anyone who looks at the hard facts will see) that our invasion is the best thing to happen to the average Iraqi. I think we respect their culture a lot more than foreigners do American culture.Please REMEMBER when debating at least with me, that I was/am for the war at its start based on what you said, REMOVAL of a BRUTAL DICTATOR but our post war planning has made me say "jeez I wish we wouldve waited a little bit longer and spent a little bit more time thinking and planning for when its over." Maybe, but I maintain a presence in most of these political/Iraq threads and as long as I can remember you (I think when you attacked the economy or job market a couple months ago) you've been against what we're doing there.I feel pretty confident sending troops from S. Korea wasnt in the cards back then because as usual, this admin. is shortsighted, IMO.I think we need to increase our troop levels as a whole. I think Clinton cut them way too much (Bush I may have had a part too after the Cold War ended) and W Bush hasn't built them back up enough (I believe Tommy Franks disagrees with me and thinks by the time we get to those levels they will be unnecessary, and he might know better than me). I just don't see where he was going to get the money needed to do this.Remember that quote, "All in just over a year." I believe youll be plugging bigger and bigger lengths of time in that there. Sic, "All in just over 5 years we've built a base and stabilized a country." Sic, "All in just over ten years we've continued to fight those that feel we shouldnt be here to help them."I think you're not understanding just how bad it was and how much progress has been made. I also think I'll be saying within 2 more monhs that we turned over sovereignty and most of the duties of government to the Iraqis themselves, and in less than a year that a government elected by the people of Iraq is in place. Unless of course there is a change in administration, which Im praying for cuz then it'll be...."All in just over 5 years NATO peacekeepers ahve been able to stabilize the country and hold the second election of democratically elected leaders." To me that sounds so much better.While I agree the end result sounds nicer, I just don't think it's more likely under your scenario. As long as Bush (or Cheney if you prefer that) is in charge, he needs to win. He can't let it fail. Kerry's proposed strategy seems to be turn over more control to people who didn't want this war, bring in more troops from other countries who don't want to fight and who aren't nearly as good as US troops are (other than Britain and Norway no European nation can effectively fight on the same battlefield alongside the US because of the huge, ever growing gap in technology and weaponry.) Judging by the relative success of our attempt in Afghanistan, and more importantly the horrible, horrible, horrible record the UN has of dealing with nation-building and Iraq, I think we've shown we can't really do any worse and will likely do better than them.we boil it down to - FLasch186 = skeptic of the admin who wants to see truth and honesty from the top and feels we should do more to embrace our alliesThis is at the risk of turning a discussion into a pissing match between two people, which I don't want, but as long as you're going to include it, I might as well take a stab at it. Flasch186=relentless critic of the administration who has already made up his mind that we are doing things wrong, and wants to see Bush and Rumsfeld gone. Focuses on things that fit this opinion and doesn't try to accurately assess the situation on the ground.BishopMVP = Staunch Republican who feels that whatever the Administration does is good for America and the right way to do things even if it means, stepping on some people (allies at the UN), bending some rules (Geneva), lying (Bush and Rumsfeld on WMD) so that an "end" can be met, etc.BishopMVP=never voted for a Republican in my life (true, I'm 18, but I wouldn't have voted for the Republican Presidential candidate in any election since '92) and won't be starting this November either. Feels that what the Administration is doing with regards to Iraq is good for America and the right way to do things, even if it means overruling objections from traditional allies (who have never really liked us that much, but can only express it now that the Soviet threat is gone,) disobeying parts of the letter, but not the spirit, of a vaguely worded treaty our enemies have no intention of followoing anyway, and misleading the American public/picking the wrong focus when the case was there anyway.Neither is right, neither is wrong...but at least here at the FOFC (a slap at the thread on FOFC politics) you can have intelligent debate with other people who seem to be smart as well. Only smart pople play FOF right?What is this FOF you speak of? Is it like Hattrick at all? ;) I agree though that this is a much more civil place to discuss things than any other internet forum (and most non-internet places) and hope it stays that way. I know that I go a little overboard from time to time and write in an antagonistic fashion, but I never hold things against people.In many ways I understand the attraction to the notion that if all we have to do is strip down a bunch of bad guys and make them lie on top of each other and these guys will start to give us valid intelligence. It seems like all we have to do is humiliate them a little, and we can get some real benefit out of it. The problem is that we can't trade the honor of our nation for some short term intelligence gain. We have to treat the worst of prisoners with the best of care. We have to do that because it is freedom and justice we are trying to bring to Iraq isn't it? If Osama Bin Laden were held in one of those prisons, I wouldn't want to humiliate him either. I'd like to think we would treat him with care. Right up until his execution, that is.In general, I agree. I thought I made that clear in my previous posts that I don't condone stuff that crosses a line, no matter how much we'd gain from it, and I don't condone any abuse or humiliation that is just messing around and doesn't actually lead to something productive. Also, humiliating and torturing prisoners usually doesn't lead to actionable intellignece, but instead the victim trying his hardest to tell you whatever will make it stop. But if we are using some form of humiliation/abuse as part of our policy, that would seem to indicate it works. What if we offered Osama a plea bargain where he told us all he knew and we didn't give him the death penalty? Aside from whether he'd accept, that's threatening him with death if he doesn't tell us what we know. Is that really that much different than doing the same thing via extra-legal means? For what I feel is like the 50th time this thread, I'm not saying we should seriously torture prisoners, in fact I'm very much opposed to this, but I put the line a little further than the Geneva Convention does. To get back to my earlier question, people want fewer American deaths and they want to cry murder when we go a little overboard in interrogating prisoners. Let's take a hypothetical and assume for the moment that we will get better intelligence the harder we press. Just how far is it acceptable to go before we draw the line and say that the material gain is not worth the loss of honor and moral high ground?
It was beyond negligent to know that this had been going on, and to have not even read or even obtain a briefing on the report. The attitude with which he dealt with this issue is what gives me a problem with Rumsfeld.Before I start, I want to make sure I say that he does still have some culpability. However, the way they delegate authority is certainly different than before, and I think I like it. While it may make it easier for a small part to get out of control or misinterpret orders, the flexibility of our armed forces is a large part of their success. A commander on the ground generally knows better than someone in the high command how to deal with the situation he is presented with, and in our army he can usually take that action without having to clear it with superiors. Especially when facing combat, this is very important and beneficial. When dealing with POW's, there should be more central control, and it appears from the limited facts that Rumsfeld should at the least have been more specific in his orders and that he misestimated the public reaction. But even if he personally didn't order an investigation or even know there was one going on, someone else was handling it. If by his attitude you're referring to his public persona of downplaying it, I can see where he may have went overboard, but I think it's a much smaller deal than the media is making it out to be and he was right to say that. It wasn't very diplomatic they way he said it, but personally I care about actions over words and like the way he deals with the reporters.

I apologize for saying the Flasch186 vs. bishop comment...I intended to actually just boil things down to show that it always ends up being the same and that I feel like no matter what mountain of evidence points us to, we wont believe it unless it supports our opinion. HOWEVER, I can say I do not follow the party line. I actually agree with the admin. about not opening the oil reserves, see I can "flip flop". I say again, Well I guess i never flipped to begin with, that the ability to "flip flop" is a good thing.

Them not even wanting to see the report - Lots of typing coming :) :

"In the days and weeks ahead, it is likely to emerge the the International Committee of the Red Cross, the State Dept. abd the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Bremer, all warned of mounting problems in the prisonS...The Red Cross brought its complaints to the State Dept.'s attention 'regularly and consistently over a lengthy period' dating ALL THE WAY BACK to the US invasion of Afghanistan...one top State Dept. official said. A 24 pg. report delivered to the Pentagon in Feb. tells of systemic 'use of ill treatment' - most graphically, 7 shootings of UNARMED prisoners, sometimes from watchtowers. The abuses were 'tantamount to torture'.

Aides to Bremer say that LAST AUGUST the Amer. proconsul became concerned about reports of detainees who were removed from their families and crowded into makeshift prisons ina and around Baghdad, inc. Abu Ghraib...Bremer began urging military and Bush-admin. officials to improve the state of affirs. How hard he rang the bell is not clear. 'The CPA always viewed this as a military issue' ie. someone else's responsibilty. Likwise, by about Nov. of last year, SOS Colin Powell was bringing up Prisoner abuse at meetings of TOP ADMIN. Officials, including Rumsfeld. Powell has always been a strong supporter of adhering to the Geneva Conventions...But it does not appear, from what is known thus far, that Powell was very urgent or vocal about his warnings. [and Condi did nothing either]

In Jan. came the first reports of the grotesque humiliation of prisoners at Abu. A whistle blower - slid a computer disk w/ some hair raising pics under an investigator's door. The military publicly announced that it was launching an investigation With the usual can-do attitude, the report up the chain to the Sec. of D was situation under control.

[B]For a forward-leaning detail man, Rumsfeld was strangely passive. It does not seem to have occured to him that the photos could be devastating. Last week he protested that he could not be very well have reached down into the investigation and asked to see the evidence. Since he might have to rule on the fates of defendents facing courts martial, Rum. and his aides could not be seen prejudging the case or influincing it in any way....

And yet there was Rumsfeld and his faithful JCS chairman, Myers, telling Congress last week that they had read the report of their own investigator, only AFTER it was widely quoted in the NEW Yorker. ...Rumsfled hadnt seen the pictures until the night before he testified. "It breaks our hearts that in fact someone did not say, 'wait Look this is terrible. We need to do something." Said Rumsfeld.


IMO They tried, they did, but the boss didnt want to hear it and NOW the only reason why it is "terrible" is cuz they got caught.


Hypocrite, NO...you missed my point - I was saying that Staunch Admin, supporters would support it no matter what, Im just glad the CIA, some semblance of a gov't agency pulled out in admittance that something was wrong.

I was for the removal of Saddam but boy have we blown post war Iraq. Poorly planned, and almost everyone has admitted that except you know who.


NATO did a pretty good job in Kosovo.


Again, I just feel that this admin, with few exceptions, feels that they are above the law, above responsibilty, above concern about how the rest of the world views us (except when it comes to trade)....and this rogue attitude, cowboy attitude IMO is a bad road to travel.

IMO They tried, they did, but the boss didnt want to hear it and NOW the only reason why it is "terrible" is cuz they got caught.

You know, I remember my bosses always telling me how important my job was and I just laughed. Now I look back and instead of laughing I should have listened. These po-dunk back water reserve police have almost single handedly ruined the USA's reputation overnight.

And did they feel bad for it when they saw the world reaction? Of course they did, until the press started telling them they were the victims in all of this and it was ultimately Don Rumsfelds fault. Now they are pointing fingers at everybody and anybody other than themselves.

The Geneva Conventions says the individual is responsable for their actions. And while this will be dramatized greatly, the reality is that those at the bottom had a responsability to stop this sickening brutality if they witnessed it. And nobody did.

The story broke because one of the soldiers *already* under investigation by the US Army gave the photos to the press.

You know, I remember my bosses always telling me how important my job was and I just laughed. Now I look back and instead of laughing I should have listened. These po-dunk back water reserve police have almost single handedly ruined the USA's reputation overnight.

And did they feel bad for it when they saw the world reaction? Of course they did, until the press started telling them they were the victims in all of this and it was ultimately Don Rumsfelds fault. Now they are pointing fingers at everybody and anybody other than themselves.

The Geneva Conventions says the individual is responsable for their actions. And while this will be dramatized greatly, the reality is that those at the bottom had a responsability to stop this sickening brutality if they witnessed it. And nobody did.

The story broke because one of the soldiers *already* under investigation by the US Army gave the photos to the press.
A few things I heard on NPR about the abuse court martial tomorrow. The guy tomorrow is to plead guilty...I think he was the guy who leaked the pictures....he was definately the guy who took them. One of the other accused, the woman in the pictures, said that an unnamed superior officer asked her to pose in the pictures. The fact that she was a woman would be more humiliating, and the picture would be more effective.

kerry

Dola,

LoL that was not a political statement. That was my daughter (just turned four) spelling her name. She told me she was "typing her name in"....I just thought she was at a google search screen.

She sits on my lap in front of the computer all the time, so I guess she really has been paying attention.

I suspect the pictures are a key to this. I really don't see superior officers wanting these. It's more in line with a bunch of punks having some perverted fun - particularly the pictures of the girl having it off with other soldiers. I don't see this being officially sanctioned. Much more like a lack of supervision I think.

Whats the big deal??? If i ever got my hands on a fuckin terrorist or insergent or someone planting IEDs to kill my buddies, or if I was being shot at all day and someone told me `this is the guy we think was trying to kill your buddies` Id do a hell of a lot worse than put some panties on his head.

Shit happens in war. Grow the fuck up and stop acting like pussys. Until you guys are getting fired at all day and buddies dying, maybe you should shut your mouths about living up to a piece of paper that no country lives up to anyways. If some dude rapes my wife and I catch him on the street, I aint gonna be thinking about `innocent until proven guilty`. If some motha-fuckin terrorists attack my country and I catch them in Iraq, I aint gonna be living up to no Geneva conventions neither

um, did you hear the descriptions of the photos they wont let the public see. Lack of supervision probably not. Some senators who were for releasing all of the pics, saw them and changed their minds cuz of how bad they are. We;ll see how it all plays out.

Dola,

LoL that was not a political statement. That was my daughter (just turned four) spelling her name. She told me she was "typing her name in"....I just thought she was at a google search screen.

She sits on my lap in front of the computer all the time, so I guess she really has been paying attention.

That's hilarious. What are the odds? Would you have named your child Kerry if four years ago you knew whgo would be running for President? :) (actually a very pretty name, just thought it was funny)

Also, is it really a dola, if you didn't really write the previous post? :)

CR

C) the prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict being held at Guantanamo Bay, other than having their status unsettled and detained in seeming perpetuity, have been mistreated in any way? My understanding is that those prisoners are being treated as humanely as prisoners of war normally are and in accordance with the GPW.

There's actually been quite a few reports from former detainees accusing the U.S. of using physical and pyschological mistreatment at Guantanamo. Without hard physical evidence it comes down to he-said/she-said, but given the incidents at Abu Ghraib and the fact the former chief of Guantanamo was transferred to run Abu Ghraib it tends to lend greater credence to these accusations.

Also, the administration has expressly labeled the Gitmo detainees as enemy combatants and not subject to the Geneva Convention. The implication is that they are not being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, or why else declare they are not subject to it?

I suspect the pictures are a key to this. I really don't see superior officers wanting these. It's more in line with a bunch of punks having some perverted fun - particularly the pictures of the girl having it off with other soldiers. I don't see this being officially sanctioned. Much more like a lack of supervision I think.

Sorry, but it is quite clear from analysis and discussion with former military and intelligence officers that these are exactly the kind of photos that are wanted to as part of the interrogation and coercion process by superior officers. They are used as blackmail against the prisoners. Sexual demeaning photos and being naked with a female to Muslims is incredibly shameful and a known tactic in intelligence circles. The prisoners are then threatened with release of the photos to the prisoner's community if he does not cooperate.

In addition, there a number of classified photos that have not been seen by the public, but both Rep. and Dem. senators say are much worse than what the public has seen so far.

>Sorry, but it is quite clear from analysis and discussion with former military and intelligence officers that these are exactly the kind of photos that are wanted to as part of the interrogation and coercion process by superior officers.

Unfortunately in these cases there's never any shortage of "experts" who come out of the woodwork, at a price of course, to support the case of both sides. CNN and Fox News are adjacent channels on my sat tv system and it's an education in spin to switch betwen these two and listen to these 'experts'.

> They are used as blackmail against the prisoners. Sexual demeaning photos and being naked with a female to Muslims is incredibly shameful and a known tactic in intelligence circles. The prisoners are then threatened with release of the photos to the prisoner's community if he does not cooperate.

I understand that but that's why I mentioned that there were a number of photos of American soldiers in sexual acts particularly with the girl which had nothing to do with the prisoners.

From a self preservation point of view these photos were pretty stupid. Whoever took then didn't think too much about the consequences of their being found. I think this is more likely the behaviour of a bunch of punks out of control than superior officers who are practised at covering their backs - particularly when you include the sexual acts between soldiers which just don't fit into a pattern of blackmail of prisoners. If these photos were taken under the supervision of intelligence officers I just don't see where they can fit in.

>In addition, there a number of classified photos that have not been seen by the public, but both Rep. and Dem. senators say are much worse than what the public has seen so far.

It may be that you have more information there than I have here in Australia but all we've heard so far is that these photos are even more despicable than the ones we've seen. There's been no suggestion that these provide proof that the soldiers were carrying out orders.

So, on the basis of information known so far, I think a bunch of perverted punks having what they see as a good time fits the evidence better. Should further information point the other way then I will assess the situation afresh but I'm not prepared at this time to assume evidence just because it's convenient to my prejudices.

thats an awfule lot of pictures for a bunch of punks to take. They say over a thousand. When did they have time to do anything else? I guess for some people until they see the evidence with their own eyes, then dispute that, have that dispute dismantled, and then begrudgingly say there might eb something to it, they just wont believe that OUR gov't. might be doing something less then desirable.

It's very, very obvious by now that it wasn't just a bunch of low-level punks. Every day, more information becomes available to make that scenario completely implausible.

Also, the administration has expressly labeled the Gitmo detainees as enemy combatants and not subject to the Geneva Convention. The implication is that they are not being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, or why else declare they are not subject to it?
I'm not a lawyer and far from an expert, but I believe that they did not want them labeled as enemy combatants because of "conditions for release." That's what I seem to remember. The Adminstration has done everything they can to be able to hold those prisoners "indefinitely" (which I believe is a travesty).

HOWEVER, I can say I do not follow the party line. I actually agree with the admin. about not opening the oil reserves, see I can "flip flop". I say again, Well I guess i never flipped to begin with, that the ability to "flip flop" is a good thing.I'm not going to list all the issues I disagree with Bush on. It's probably about half or more.IMO They tried, they did, but the boss didnt want to hear it and NOW the only reason why it is "terrible" is cuz they got caught.If Rumsfeld ordered it, then he already knew about it. If he didn't know about it, that would seem to imply he didn't order it which is the main point of contention here.I was for the removal of Saddam but boy have we blown post war Iraq. Poorly planned, and almost everyone has admitted that except you know who.Our plan for post-war Iraq was unprepared and hasn't worked as well as it was thought. The problem I have is that things are not nearly as bad as the media portrays it to be, and more importantly, that people who are taking our results so far as a failure take this as a defeat. In my book, if one way fails, you try a different way. We clearly have the capability to succeed (maybe not as much as the optimists hope but much better than the defeatists think) if we commit to it and work hard. But they'd rather the people who want to fight pack up and go home instead of trying to help them achieve better results.NATO did a pretty good job in Kosovo.At nation building? What gives you that impression? There are still constant ethnic flare-ups (last month Kosovar riots killed at least 20 ethnic Serbs,) the only sectors of the economy that have shown significant growth are the prostitution, drug and arms smuggling industries, a couple weeks ago there was a (group of) UN Peacekeepers shooting up American peacekeepers. It now appears that NATO will have to stay until past the 2006 date. That's 7 years and counting, 6 more than they've given us in Iraq before saying we're taking too long. If the media focused on Kosovo like they do Iraq you would have a far different picture of how it is going.

It's very, very obvious by now that it wasn't just a bunch of low-level punks. Every day, more information becomes available to make that scenario completely implausible.
I think you are correct, but I don't think the trail will lead as high as you would like it to. I think some intel folks came up with this program to deal with the baddest of the bad, and may or may not have gotten authorization from pentagon brass. Then someone else made the decision to expand it. I honestly don't believe that if Rumsfeld had given the go ahead on this that he would have ignored the scandal up until he was before congress.

Oh and while the low level punks are claiming they were ordered to do these things or just to vaguely "soften the prisoners up", they should still damn well be held responsible for their actions. The cases need to be handled individually, and the punishment if any further should match the offense. There were apparently a good number of MPs that declined to take part in the acts, so that makes the ones that did participate look pretty bad.

Im just saying that if were going to go into a war holding a flag of righteousness and morality then we better damn well walk the talk or else we run the risk of what has happened, looking like a powerful country led by hypocrites and liars. and Rummy is certainly right at the top of the chain, as a matter of fact, he has been caught in so many lies that I find it humorous when he is cornered on them, "I never said that. Well I never meant that. Youre taking it out of ocntext. IT was nt said by me. It doesnt apply to the spirit of the meaning." Just shamockery.

If we tell the rest of the world to adhere to the geneva accords and then spit on them, we are no better then they are. Quite difficult to stand on our soapbox and chastise other countries for their immorality when we look like hypocrites. Why are we surprised that the whole Arab region, minus a few, werent "outraged" by the beheading? Its as if we are standing in our scumpile, screaming at them to behave appropriately. Well why should they behave according to our standards when all that they see is that our standards we dont even live up to.

How do you know that things are better in Iraq? I assume you watch the news reports and see all of the negative and think, "Jeez, there must be some good out there...There must be some good out there but all I see is bad stuff (like all media entirely), so Im going to assume that there is some good going on out there. There is some good going on in Iraq. Must be!!! Cant find any reports on it unless they come from pro-war hawk media, eventhough the media is inundated with the opposite, but why should I believe it!!!???" Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if 99% is bad stuff being reported Im not going to assume that 99% of that is wrong and that 99% of what is going on id good.

NATO has done what they are supposed to do in Kosovo. Keep the peace as best they can when the people want to kill eachother, until the generations grow to be able to coexist (this is nato's job not ours). Keep the peace until the gov't can support its own peace keeping armies that are uncorrupt (this is there job not ours). Basically NATO and the UN exist so that ONE country doesnt have to do these things. It is the world's responsibilyt now, regardless and whether or not we choose to stay there for an extended period of time the UN and NATO will eventually have to be involved. Our plan has been awful, for rebuilding Iraq and Im not so sure that it wont have to be altered greatly in order to see it to a succesful fruition.

not following the whole thread but I'll assume we are talking the prisoner thing. Of all the people involved in the war and prisoners why are the actions of a couple morons a big deal...

How do you know that things are better in Iraq? I assume you watch the news reports and see all of the negative and think, "Jeez, there must be some good out there...There must be some good out there but all I see is bad stuff (like all media entirely), so Im going to assume that there is some good going on out there. There is some good going on in Iraq. Must be!!! Cant find any reports on it unless they come from pro-war hawk media, eventhough the media is inundated with the opposite, but why should I believe it!!!???" Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if 99% is bad stuff being reported Im not going to assume that 99% of that is wrong and that 99% of what is going on id good.

It seems everytime the actual soldiers are talked to, they're reporting that there is plenty of good going on in Iraq.

The good news is also the boring news, so that's just not going to be reported as much. I don't think the mainstream media is consciously trying to paint an ugly picture in Iraq (and there is plenty of ugliness there) but it's no different than watching local news. Bad news and dramatic visuals sell, good news and peaceful scenes don't.

thats what were talking about

"1800 slides and several videos" a couple of morons i think not.

"The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than 6 or 7 MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, A FORMER MILITARY PROSECUTOR. He added: "It seems to have been planned." Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal - that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes, and penis - may do a lot to undercut the admin's. case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known ONLY to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up herself? Think again" Said Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "Thats a standard torture. Its called 'the Vietnam' But its not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

A Newsweek investigation shows that, as a means of preempting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, alonf with Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. .[..To the objections of Powell they approved this to 'sidestep' the geneva conventions'. "While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a SYSTEMATIC softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats, and humiliation - methods that the Red Cross concluded [after an investigation] were 'tantamount to torture'".

So I guess this time the admiin is going to play dumb. "who knew that by signing off on this that some lower ranked underlings might use it to these horrible ends" wink wink. Im sorry but im not buying it. Lets just start today with an honest approach, "we dont care about the geneva conventions. We are going to do everything and anything to get the info. we need. If another country captures our prisoner and treats them poorly we will ENFORCE our own standards, the geneva conventions, again, dont apply. We'll come and get you. While we're in Iraq we are in control and the people living there will either stay out of our way or you could end up in the prison system and there is no telling what might happen. We apologize in advance." At least then were being honest and the world knows what to expect but right now we have let the entire world down, if we expect them to look at us as an example of the moral high ground.

thats what were talking about

"1800 slides and several videos" a couple of morons i think not.

So your contention is that from above they were ordered to get liquered up, pile naked bodies, laugh at their members, have sex and take pictures of it?

not following the whole thread but I'll assume we are talking the prisoner thing. Of all the people involved in the war and prisoners why are the actions of a couple morons a big deal...First, I say this with the utmost kindness. But:

1) Read the Seymour Hersh article.

2) Read the 3+ pages of this discussion.

3) Consider not dropping in to the fourth page of a more-or-less in-depth discussion of a question you seem to not want answered based on the fact you haven't read the other responses in the thread to that very question, just to ask a question that has already been answered to a large degree of detail.*

*That detail including such facts as a) it was more than a couple of morons, b) unless by "couple of morons" you mean two at the top of the chain, namely Rumsfeld and someone else; c) don't assume. Take the time to find out what's being discussed before chiming in under the impression that since you didn't pay attention to anyone else's opinions we should pay attention to yours.

First, I say this with the utmost kindness. But:

1) Read the Seymour Hersh article.

2) Read the 3+ pages of this discussion.

3) Consider not dropping in to the fourth page of a more-or-less in-depth discussion of a question you seem to not want answered based on the fact you haven't read the other responses in the thread to that very question, just to ask a question that has already been answered to a large degree of detail.*

*That detail including such facts as a) it was more than a couple of morons, b) unless by "couple of morons" you mean two at the top of the chain, namely Rumsfeld and someone else; c) don't assume. Take the time to find out what's being discussed before chiming in under the impression that since you didn't pay attention to anyone else's opinions we should pay attention to yours.


Funny, I don't recall quoting your post or asking you but um....ok.

Funny, I don't recall quoting your post or asking you but um....ok.But you did ask. Quote: "...why are the actions of a couple morons a big deal..."? I am pointing you in the direction of an answer to the question. Unless you simply meant it rhetorically which, sadly, the impact of was lost somewhere in the three pages of discussion over why people feel it is a big deal.

Just doing my part to promote informed discussion, regardless of viewpoint. But that a person's viewpoint, whatever the position, should be informed is a matter about which I'm more adamant.

i do enjoy this you all, as most people in my every day life dont even know half of what is going on in the world. Scary thought as they will be voting.

BTW, whether or not the Geneva Conventions applied goes all the way back to just after 9/11 when the state dept. under Powell argued it did and the Admin. rebuked him and said that it does not apply to anyone who is a member of the Taliban (ok...probably somewhat easier to prove.) or is a member of AL Qaeda (how are you going to prove that?) so since you cant prove it you should just say they are so that you can torture them. As powell has said, Throwing out the geneva conventions "will reverse over a century of US policy and practice and have a high cost in terms of negative international reaction." Thank you mr. powell, please keep calling im sure someone will answer the phone.

If we tell the rest of the world to adhere to the geneva accords and then spit on them, we are no better then they are. Quite difficult to stand on our soapbox and chastise other countries for their immorality when we look like hypocrites. Why are we surprised that the whole Arab region, minus a few, werent "outraged" by the beheading? Its as if we are standing in our scumpile, screaming at them to behave appropriately. Well why should they behave according to our standards when all that they see is that our standards we dont even live up to.

No one spit on the geneva convention. This scandal came to light after an investigation by the millitary. The millitary stopped this mistreatment of prisoners well before this became public. The arab nations weren't outraged at the beheading, in my opinion, because they have an entirely different culture. Plus I believe the governments of those nations have been blaming Israel and the west(America specifically) for the plight of their citizens. That is their agenda. If their people won't blame Israel or America, they might blame their government. So we, western civilization, are the great enemy. We are to blame for everything. To a good percentage of the Arab street, he deserved it. Even with these abuses, America treats it's prisoners, even enemy combatants, far better than any other nation we have ever engaged in combat.



How do you know that things are better in Iraq? I assume you watch the news reports and see all of the negative and think, "Jeez, there must be some good out there...There must be some good out there but all I see is bad stuff (like all media entirely), so Im going to assume that there is some good going on out there. There is some good going on in Iraq. Must be!!! Cant find any reports on it unless they come from pro-war hawk media, eventhough the media is inundated with the opposite, but why should I believe it!!!???" Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if 99% is bad stuff being reported Im not going to assume that 99% of that is wrong and that 99% of what is going on id good.

Well not all the news out of Iraq is bad. Watch/listen to any news organization's reports for any period of time, and you will find a possitive story about Iraq. Where real Iraqi citizens speak up and say they are glad the U.S. is there. Real Iraqi citizens talking about how the Americans have built schools and hospitals, and how the American medical units have been treating the local citizens. You will also hear that they are discouraged by the lack of security in the country. They are angered by the abuse photos, and rightly so. There are also those interviewed who are beyond discouraged, and have reached the point that they think the Americans are causing more trouble than good. Interview a hundred people in any society and you will get a wide variety of opinions on all sorts of topics. Iraq is no different. Just because 99% of the news out of the country is bad, doesn't mean that things are 99% bad. It just means that we as a people aren't really interested in good things. News typically reports bad things. Bad is sensational, and draws an audience. Good News just doesn't.




NATO has done what they are supposed to do in Kosovo. Keep the peace as best they can when the people want to kill eachother, until the generations grow to be able to coexist (this is nato's job not ours). Keep the peace until the gov't can support its own peace keeping armies that are uncorrupt (this is there job not ours). Basically NATO and the UN exist so that ONE country doesnt have to do these things. It is the world's responsibilyt now, regardless and whether or not we choose to stay there for an extended period of time the UN and NATO will eventually have to be involved. Our plan has been awful, for rebuilding Iraq and Im not so sure that it wont have to be altered greatly in order to see it to a succesful fruition.

We would have gladly had the UN handle Iraq, but the UN abdicated it's responsibility to enforce its own rulings. I think the nations that orchestrated that turn of events at the UN did so for a number of selfish reasons. None of which included a desire for peace.

As for our plan being awful...I would agree. We do have experts on nation building. They are the folks who led the rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Serbia/Croatia. They were apparently not part of the solution deployed by the U.S.

BTW, whether or not the Geneva Conventions applied goes all the way back to just after 9/11 when the state dept. under Powell argued it did and the Admin. rebuked him and said that it does not apply to anyone who is a member of the Taliban (ok...probably somewhat easier to prove.) or is a member of AL Qaeda (how are you going to prove that?) so since you cant prove it you should just say they are so that you can torture them. As powell has said, Throwing out the geneva conventions "will reverse over a century of US policy and practice and have a high cost in terms of negative international reaction." Thank you mr. powell, please keep calling im sure someone will answer the phone.
Dola,

The admin didn't rebuke Powell. They actually agreed with him.... Well not completely, but it was far short of a rebuke. They agreed the the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict, but not to the "enemy combatants". Sort of an eat your cake and have it too decision.;) It is something I am uncomfortable with. I wish those imprisoned had some sort recourse. We really should have to at least provide reasonable evidence against them in order to hold them in the manner we are.

thats an awfule lot of pictures for a bunch of punks to take. They say over a thousand. When did they have time to do anything else? I guess for some people until they see the evidence with their own eyes, then dispute that, have that dispute dismantled, and then begrudgingly say there might eb something to it, they just wont believe that OUR gov't. might be doing something less then desirable.

No, the difference is that some people require evidence before condemning others while some make assumptions that satisfy their prejudices.

I spent a couple of hours last night (Australian time) watching the Senate Committee hearings broadcast on CNN live. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the abuse was the result of following orders from above despite several senators trying to extract it. That doesn't mean to say there is not evidence but it does mean that no evidence has yet surfaced to justify the condemnation.

What did come across was the confusion and pityful communications between the interrogation units and the MPs and a system of responsibilities which is inadequate for the new circumstances in Iraq. At one point one respondent almost yelled at the committee "THE SYSTEM IS BROKE!" He went on to say that the system is being modified on the fly in order to deal with circumstances never visualised when the system was designed.

In this system the interrogation units believe that the MPs have no part to play whatsoever in the inteerogation of the prisoners. I even got the impression there is a certain antagonism between the two groups. For that reason the rules and instuctions passed down to interrogators about the techniques that can be used and those that cannot are not passed on to the MPs. They were not considered to be relevant to their activities and they themselves will have little knowledge of these.

In Iraq however that neat separation of responsibilites doesn't hold.

The instruction given to MPs by inteerogators, and you can see the potential for misinterpretation here, is essentially "prepare the prisoner for interrogation". Clearly you can interpret that from "bring the prisoner to the interrogation room" to "beat the living daylights out of him to soften him up".

It wouldn't be surprising if a bunch of untrained punks with sadistic tendencies assumed the latter.

It is also perfectly possible that individual interrogators may express the instruction in stronger and less ambiguous terms which can be interpreted correctly as the latter. But we don't know that and as yet certainly have no evidence yet to justify that they have.

There will doubtless be further evidence and that evidence may change the balance of probabilities but at this moment there is little to suggest that the abuse was at the direction of senior officers or that it was official policy. Your suggestion that there are too many photographs to come from half a dozen punks is easily answered. There is no reason to believe that the abuse is not much more widespread than the particular group nor that the group is limited to the particular few so far charged.

Another interesting piece of information that hasn't made the press here: on the 20th March - nearly two months before the scandal broke - the coalition authorities had charged 6 individuals with abuse of prisoners. In other words, they had already become aware of it (starting an investigation in January as a result of Red Cross complaints) and had already taken action against abusers. In the senate hearing it was stated that the Red Cross were already satisfied that abuse had been eliminated and that no complaints had been made for some time and that the scandal referred to events that had occurred before the events were known to command.

It's funny to read a debate where the pre-defined positions are so well entrenched but trying to disguise that fact.

Translation: A Bush-hater (or Clinton-hater, or Reagan-hater, or [fill in the blank]-hater) will try to dig up and jump on any kernel of information to prove that the one they hate is worth hating.

I can't stand Bush. But as yet there is no evdidence to suggest he has any direct involvement in this. One senator tried to create a link between the abuse actions and the "civilians in the Pentagon". But the response was that these were operational matters and that actions were determined by pre-existing rules and he was not aware of any instructions from these 'civilians" over this.

Maybe he's lieing. But with no evidence to show he is then we cannot reasonably challenge the statement.

It's funny to read a debate where the pre-defined positions are so well entrenched but trying to disguise that fact.

Translation: A Bush-hater (or Clinton-hater, or Reagan-hater, or [fill in the blank]-hater) will try to dig up and jump on any kernel of information to prove that the one they hate is worth hating.

And a Bush-lover (or Clinton-lover etc...) will try and dig up and jump on any kernel of information to prove that the one they love is worth loving.

So, Rumsfield LIED??? :rolleyes:

And a Bush-lover (or Clinton-lover etc...) will try and dig up and jump on any kernel of information to prove that the one they love is worth loving.

So, Rumsfield LIED??? :rolleyes:
So you agree then it is the same thing, both should be taken with a grain a salt? Good.

Now on to media networks....

So you agree then it is the same thing, both should be taken with a grain a salt? Good.

Now on to media networks....
I do agree it's the same thing, just pointing out the obvious that you neglected to mention is all.

Media networks? There are examples of networks that can be viewed as biased towards both sides of the aisle.

Did not neglect to mention because it is implied (hate/love are two sides of the same coin). But I'll remember your statement the next time you jump in with something. :D

Did not neglect to mention because it is implied (hate/love are two sides of the same coin). But I'll remember your statement the next time you jump in with something. :D

You did the same thing Fox News is all. Point out the flaws in your opponent's arguments while neglecting to point out the same flaw in your own is all.

Media networks? There are examples of networks that can be viewed as biased towards both sides of the aisle.

OMG! It's like Christopher Columbus landing in the Carribean.....it ain't the Spice Islands, but it's a start and you are heading in the right direction. :)

OMG! It's like Christopher Columbus landing in the Carribean.....it ain't the Spice Islands, but it's a start and you are heading in the right direction. :)

If you wanna cry foul on CNN then I can cry foul on Fox :D

Now, Chubby, I would never allow an unfair fight...I'm all about head to head competition. :)

How do you know that things are better in Iraq? I assume you watch the news reports and see all of the negative and think, "Jeez, there must be some good out there...There must be some good out there but all I see is bad stuff (like all media entirely), so Im going to assume that there is some good going on out there. There is some good going on in Iraq. Must be!!! Cant find any reports on it unless they come from pro-war hawk media, eventhough the media is inundated with the opposite, but why should I believe it!!!???" Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if 99% is bad stuff being reported Im not going to assume that 99% of that is wrong and that 99% of what is going on id good.In addition to the vast majority of the letters home from soldiers that I have seen say it is going decently, not great but decent, and in a lot of the interviews with soldiers returning home they mention how shocked they are at the negativity of the reporting on how the situation is going, there are the polls of Iraqis themselves. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
and http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

Here are some of the findings: Poll #1 - Pre-war vs. post-war:

Your family's protection from crime: 50.5 percent say things are better now; 38.6 percent, worse.

The security situation: 53.6 percent of respondents say things are better now; 26.4 percent, worse.

Availability of jobs: 38.9 percent, better; 25.3 percent, worse.

Supply of electricity: 43.4 percent, better; 23.0 percent worse.

Availability of clean water: 41.3 percent, better; 16.4 percent, worse.

Availability of medical care: 44.3 percent better; 15.6 percent, worse.

Local schools: 46.9 percent better; 9.4 percent, worse.

Local government: 44.4 percent better, 16.4 percent worse.

The availability of household basics: 44.2 percent better, 16.9 percent worse.

Poll #2 - Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US/British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?

Worth it: 61%
Not worth it: 38%

Are you and your family much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the US invasion?

Better off: 51% (combining "much better" and "better')
Worse off: 25% (combining "much worse" and "worse')

Has there been an increase or a decrease in the family income compared to that of before the war?

Increase: 41%
Decrease: 16%

Have you been afraid to worship?

Last 4 weeks: 5%
Before the war: 54%

Would Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by Iraqis if US/British forces had not taken direct military action?

Yes: 4%
No: 89%Now, when asked about how they feel about the Americans, they still turn negative, and when asked how they feel the country as a whole is doing in these areas they say about the same, but the raw numbers in almost every area seem to indicate improvement.NATO has done what they are supposed to do in Kosovo. Keep the peace as best they can when the people want to kill eachother, until the generations grow to be able to coexist (this is nato's job not ours). Keep the peace until the gov't can support its own peace keeping armies that are uncorrupt (this is there job not ours).So are you saying the difference between Kosovo and Iraq isn't that Kosovo is going better, but that we had lower expectations going into Kosovo, which would make maintaining the Saddam-era status quo in Iraq a travesty, but maintaining the Milosevic-era status quo in Kosovo a success? That seems to be how I read that statement.

GAHHHH.

In addition to 99% of the letters home from soldiers say it is going decently, not great but decent......

So are you saying there's some bean counter in the Pentagon reading all the soldiers' mail and tallying this or did you just make it up to conform to what you want to believe?

good point, yabanci.

Im saying that we let NATO handle the rebuilding of the country, which will take a long time. I believe that if we pull out within the next 5 years of Iraq without some sort of ground force to maintain the peace we will have a reversion back to the old ways. Maybe there wont be a Hussein dumping chem bombs on their own people, but probably a extremely corrupt gov't. financially and probably many many attempted coups. I remember you sited Afghanistan as a success. I have read many many articles that say outside of Karbala it is a wasteland run by warlords and bandits and much more unsafe than when the Taliban was in charge, yet Im glad to see they are gone....I say the same thing there, that the UN should be running the show.

Kosovo is going through the wonderful routine of developing a democracy. Some people will be revenge seekers and some will be heroes but regardless it is NATO that is there and there for the long haul, for the succes of the countrya nd the surrounding countries. SO I guess we'll have to be in for the long haul, i hope our country is ready cuz its seems this admin doesnt want to involve the UN or NATO so....more of the same for a long long time.

COuldve been done differently and more succesfully in my opinion.

you bitches be trippin

So are you saying there's some bean counter in the Pentagon reading all the soldiers' mail and tallying this or did you just make it up to conform to what you want to believe?Mistake, shouldn't have done that. I guess seeing 99% 3 times in the sentence I was replying to made the number stick in my head (and probably should have let the reader know how factually based the number was.) Happier now?Im saying that we let NATO handle the rebuilding of the country, which will take a long time. I believe that if we pull out within the next 5 years of Iraq without some sort of ground force to maintain the peace we will have a reversion back to the old ways. Maybe there wont be a Hussein dumping chem bombs on their own people, but probably a extremely corrupt gov't. financially and probably many many attempted coups.You do know that we would supply the majority of troops and money for any UN or NATO led force, right? It would mostly be operational control that's being handed over to any multinational body. The only way our troops will be pulled out is if there is either an Iraqi security force that will replace them (which we are slowly developing) or we say fuck it and pull out. I'm assuming from what you've written here that you realize it is a long process and there needs to be an outside group that's committed to finishing the job for there to be a decent chance of success, and that you think it is worth it. You're just arguing that turning over control to a NATO or UN-led force would be more effective (You seem to interchange which of the two we'd give up control to). Am I mistaken? Either way, I strongly disagree with this sentiment. We'd still be providing the majority of men and money (a little less than we are now) in exchange for handing over control to a group that has no results to show it is any better than we are at nation-building, and if we're talking about the UN a significant body of evidence to show otherwise.I remember you cited Afghanistan as a success. I have read many many articles that say outside of Karbala it is a wasteland run by warlords and bandits and much more unsafe than when the Taliban was in charge, yet Im glad to see they are goneAs bad as Iraq was, it was nothing compared to Afghanistan. It was probably in the bottom 5 or 10 in terms of standards of living. Even as it improves, it's gonna take a long, long time to make it anything other than a clan-based country where life pretty much sucks for most of the people, especially since the only natural resource seems to be opium. But to counterdict the claim of warlords running the country, one recently tried to secede somewhat and the centralized government sent in troops and stabilized the situation. If you think the country hasn't improved at all and the security situation has actually gotten worse, but you still say you're glad to see the Taliban gone, then as a hypothetical, should we allow the Afghani government to use the same tactics as the Taliban (public beheadings, no rights for women, etc)? We didn't use human rights as a reason for going in there, and if you think the tactics used by the Taliban (excepting the support for terrorists) were better for the people than those currently used, why not?Kosovo is going through the wonderful routine of developing a democracy. Some people will be revenge seekers and some will be heroesOne of the most surprising things about Iraq has been the almost complete lack of inter-religious violence. I remember people saying that as soon as Saddam was gone there would be all out civil war, and that as soon as we leave there will be all-out civil war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. So the fact I haven't seen any stories about actual intersectional violence (except for the bombings which Zarqawi has engineered in an effort to start a civil war) would seem to be a good sign. Especially when there is ongoing intersectional violence in Kosovo 7 years after NATO stepped in.but regardless it is NATO that is there and there for the long haul, for the success of the country and the surrounding countries.Is just being there for the long haul good enough or should we expect progress? By the former standard, Bush has already won in Iraq because he is committed to it.SO I guess we'll have to be in for the long haul, i hope our country is ready cuz its seems this admin doesnt want to involve the UN or NATO so....more of the same for a long long time.I hope so too, and I think that end up spending less time, less money, losing fewer troops and producing a better end result in Iraq if we don't hand over control to the UN or NATO.

good point, yabanci.

Im saying that we let NATO handle the rebuilding of the country, which will take a long time. I believe that if we pull out within the next 5 years of Iraq without some sort of ground force to maintain the peace we will have a reversion back to the old ways. Maybe there wont be a Hussein dumping chem bombs on their own people, but probably a extremely corrupt gov't. financially and probably many many attempted coups. I remember you sited Afghanistan as a success. I have read many many articles that say outside of Karbala it is a wasteland run by warlords and bandits and much more unsafe than when the Taliban was in charge, yet Im glad to see they are gone....I say the same thing there, that the UN should be running the show.

Kosovo is going through the wonderful routine of developing a democracy. Some people will be revenge seekers and some will be heroes but regardless it is NATO that is there and there for the long haul, for the succes of the countrya nd the surrounding countries. SO I guess we'll have to be in for the long haul, i hope our country is ready cuz its seems this admin doesnt want to involve the UN or NATO so....more of the same for a long long time.

COuldve been done differently and more succesfully in my opinion.

Are you referring to the same U.N. whose officials were skimming millions in bribes and kick-backs from Saddam's "oil for food" program? And let's not rehash the dirt about our good NATO friends, France and Germany, who had their own little "under-the-table" weapons and technology deals with Saddam in violation of the embargo.

i have a headache, seriously...a major headache but i wanted this bumped to the top so i could reply in the morning. I have to go to bed, my head, right behind my left eye is killing me. Throbbing. Advil and bed, reply in the morning. UN = world support = not hate US as much, success in Iraq. UN = NATO same amount of $ same US support. Us cannot pull out, turn over to UN. g'night.

Are you referring to the same U.N. whose officials were skimming millions in bribes and kick-backs from Saddam's "oil for food" program? And let's not rehash the dirt about our good NATO friends, France and Germany, who had their own little "under-the-table" weapons and technology deals with Saddam in violation of the embargo.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this, but I keep hearing about this and yet I have never seen any evidence or proof of this. Maybe I just missed it.

By the way, the U.N. and NATO have already indicated they have absolutely no intention of sending in any troops in the near future, mostly because of Bush's decision to go it alone to start with. So whatever role they do play will only be one of consultation and coordinating the insertion of the new government. Unfortunately, Bush has burned this bridge.

"Um, Mr. Rumsfeld?"

"Yes"

"Have you seen the Washington Post today?"

"No. Why?"

"Well, sir, with all due respect. It looks like more and more pictures are coming out every day. Today the post printed these." Hands a copy to Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld looks it over.

"these arent the 7 we sacrificed last week(s).

"I know sir."

"Damnit. Call Dick and Karl and find out how many we need to put up this time."

"Yes sir."

"Um, sir? Do you think maybe it wasn't low level MP's that thought this out and took all those pictures? Maybe it was someone..."

Rumsfeld stands up, with a scowl...The assistant continues..."I was reading some of those memos that you told us to shred and it seems like George, Dick and you kinda should've seen this coming the way you basically deemed those caught not worthy of the Geneva conventions and telling your generals that you werent getting enough intel and that we needed to lean on the captured, you know "soften them up."

Rumsfeld's eyes turn a steely grey before he say, "Just call Karl, and George and ask them how many kids we need to put up this time.....oh, and then pack your things."


I hate to say I told you so, but this will keep coming out and you'll see that this climbs all the way to Rumsfeld. Republicans and die hard Bushies will spin and spin and spin and a spin, until theyve spun themselves into a web of lies, whoops.....looks like thats already happening. Thank goodness America is starting to get tired of it, i know i am. This fall I will vote this amdin out, and the next one in.....if they continue this trend, i will vote them out as well. I hope the rest of the world forgives us for the hypocrisy we have shown.

CBS 60 Minutes 2 Director: "Man, we have thousands of pictures! This is great stuff!"

CBS 60 Minutes 2 Co-Director: "Let's go dump them all on the air tonight and ram it down Bush's throat!!!"

CBS 60 Minutes 2 Director: "No.....no, I've got a better idea! Let's put out 5-10 photos a week until the end of the election!!"

CBS 60 Minutes 2 Co-Director: "Oooooh, that's so nasty! We'll make a fortune and we will get even more donations from Kerry's camp!!!"

CBS Intern: "Hey? Didn't those terrorists over there capture some American and cut his head off the last time you put those on TV?"

CBS 60 Minutes 2 Director: "Who cares about that???? We will be rich!!! Rich, Rich, Rich, Rich!!!! Tee-hee!!!!"

Are you referring to the same U.N. whose officials were skimming millions in bribes and kick-backs from Saddam's "oil for food" program? And let's not rehash the dirt about our good NATO friends, France and Germany, who had their own little "under-the-table" weapons and technology deals with Saddam in violation of the embargo

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this, but I keep hearing about this and yet I have never seen any evidence or proof of this. Maybe I just missed it.

By the way, the U.N. and NATO have already indicated they have absolutely no intention of sending in any troops in the near future, mostly because of Bush's decision to go it alone to start with. So whatever role they do play will only be one of consultation and coordinating the insertion of the new government. Unfortunately, Bush has burned this bridge.

link one (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html)

link two (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm)

my gawd, arent you the least bit concerned that the gov't is hanging 7 young kids out to dry when they HAVE all of the pictures already. They can see who is the culprits and whether or not it came from higher ups. You Bush fans will swallow any of his kool aid, and just get spun until you cant be spun anymore. IT ISNT LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS, cuz you have the same newspapers and TV channels. Its the truth and this admin an its fans will continuously hide, twist, and sell their side and assume that i will be bought...and it appears that not only is bought, the buyers will spin it for them. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS. Comparing this behavior to Saddam's is ridiculous. At least Saddam never claimed to be a good guy. With him you get what you get, evil. For this admin to say, "Well, its better than when Saddam was there." is not a good enough benchmark. For the admin fans to defend that stance is lowest common denominator, much like the trend in this admin. Its like the WWE of presidential administrations. Good v. Evil, We wont waver, we wont change our mind, our brother just turned against us to help Iran, etc. Where is Vince?

Flasch,

I don't mind partisanship, I just don't like using the U.S. Army in the line of fire as a pawn of politics.

When the fanatics in the Middle East decide to vent everytime more pictures are released, it is the soldier that will get to bear the brunt of that anger, not Bush, not Rumsfeld, not Kerry, not CBS, not me and certainly not you.

I have slammed on Hersh before and will do so again. During OEF he wrote this big piece on a spec ops mission, trashing it to the hilt, supposedly quoting people who were actually on the mission, despite the fact those people were several thousand miles away from Hersh and still participating in the mission at the time these supposed interviews took place. There have been many discredited Pulitzer prize winning writers out there (Jimmy Breslin comes to mind) so I wouldn't stake an entire career of credibility on that award.

I fully admit Hersh is a fine writer. It's just that he is a fine writer of embelished fiction.

>my gawd, arent you the least bit concerned that the gov't is hanging 7 young kids out to dry when they HAVE all of the pictures already

You're blinded by prejudice, Flasch. You see what you want to see. Here's what we really have:

The Red Cross report that abuse is taking place. The coalition authorities set up an investigation (January). They confirm the reports. On March 20th - six weeks before the press go beserk - they charge 6 people, and announce it in a press conference. It's virtually ignored by the press.

Was the abuse vile? Absolutely! Were the authorities slow to respond? Probably! Did they get it right in the end? Yes they did!

You argued that the new pictures would confirm that the punks were carrying out orders. They do nothing of the sort. Are the interrogators blackmailing the dead now? Are they blackmailing Iraqis that can't be indentified. Are those punks gloating over the dead Iraqis reluctantly carrying out unpleasant orders or are they having a whale of a time taking shots to show their like-minded friends how they kicked ass when out in Iraq?

There is still no evidence whatsoever that this abuse moves up the chain of command even to their immediate superiors let alone Rumsfeld or Bush. Those "kids" now get their chance to make these allegations in a court of law - the authorities are acting very foolishly by allowing this if you're right.

We still await any evidence of what you allege.

I'm an Australian and most of the stuff I read like that above comes from Australians who are virulently anti-American (a minority but a significant one). A reply to these I heard recently I shamelessly plagiarise:

"There is nothing wrong with America that what is right with America cannot correct".

It does seem to me that this situation confirms that statement perfectly.

I fully admit Hersh is a fine writer. It's just that he is a fine writer of embelished fiction.

That seems to be an increasingly popular form of "news reporting."

did they get it right? NO, it will bmuch more than 6 kids in all of the pics, SO I guess if ALL of the kids in Afghanistan and Iraq were acting individually then i guess we should have alot more individual court martials on the way.

Im saying that theyhd all of these pics this whole time and still chose to only charge 6 soldiers? The pics may NOT show the higher ups directing but its not a long leap to asssume that ALL of these young kids had the same demented ideas. When they cross the border of Iraq does Evil somehow invade their minds? NO, it will show a LOT more kdis involved and thusly I say that the more kids are involved, the more liik that they are being directed. Please refer back to my earlier post in regards to "the Vietnam" (please pardon my spelling my comp. is hhicupping ridiculously)

Investigations are still going on. There may well be more. Would it be a surprise if there are more than 7 such punks in a force of 150,000? Of course not. I do agree with you that there will be more like these throughout the coalition forces but one reason for the court marshals will surely be to inform these that this behaviour won't be tolerated. But talk about the whole force being of this turn of mind is worthless speculation.

The original investigations took place without the pressure from the press. They took action to remove an awful cancer in the organisation. They should be applauded for that, not condemned. If anything the wild accusations that are now flying around is the very thing that will reduce the willingness of the authorities to come clean. The utterly unbalanced reaction - where were the press when they announced that the 6 had been charged for abuse of prisoners? Why did they need sensational pictures before reporting the abuse? - does not exactly encourage them to reveal these problems.

They responded well and I hope, if more is necessary, then they will continue to do so. And I think we can be sure, also, that if there is evidence of culpability further up then we will hear of it. The system isn't perfect but it usually brings out the truth in the end.

it only brings out the truth when it is exposed, like this. I firmly believe that like any other gov't agency if kept under wraps they will do minimal dmaage control and be of the mindset that there is no problem. I believe that this is an atmosphere created by the leadership of irresponsibilty and a feeling of invincibility throughout that lead to this behavior. There are many great soldiers out there but these soldiers on the bottom of the pyramid are taught to follow diretcions and i believe that they did that well. Yes, unfortunately the pictures will continue to trickle out and I believe the admin will continuously try to do just enough to cover their asses; to sate the masses. When Bush and Rumsfeld through out the Geneva Accords they were tellling their forces on the ground via leadership that they could do whatever they want to meet their needs and so now we have to deal with war crimes, and they should be war crimes. Im not saying that Bush should go on trial for war crimes but the people who were culpable should stand before the world and be proven wither guilty of them or innocent but not our own gov't. saying, "welp, you get one year." Tssk, tssk, hope that makes everyone happy. Well it doesnt we dont let other countries try their war criminals and neither should we.

And such boils down the usual crux of the argument...I believe we are a member of the world communtiy and held up to such responsibilities that we hold them up to, while many of you feel we are better then the rest and that we should set our own rules. I feel the former but hey, it seems like the honest, honorable, ethical, and kind stance to take. What is the alternative, "Screw all ya'll"....I guess you could say, Im not like that and dont feel our country should be either.

We are trained in what options we have to take if we are given unlawful orders. You talk about Bush covering his ass, well, those soldiers that committed these crimes against humanity better have covered their own asses if Donald Rumsfeld did in fact order these abuses. If I'm told to do those terrible things to any human being, I am documenting my protests up and down ever chain of command this side of Mai Lai and if I don't, I must hold myself responsable for being such an idiot.

We are all trained to follow "lawful" orders and we are all trained to use our chain of command in any protest, and we are trained to jump the chain when those above you are directly involved in the protest, or we can take it outside of our chain if that doesn't help our plea.

If those idiots in that reserve unit didn't know the Code of Conduct, the Law of Armed Conflict, or the Geneva Convenctions at the very basic levels, then blame them, and blame those directly in charge of them.

Othewise, we set a pretty pathetic precedent that everytime a government worker acts unlawfully we should overthrow our President. That seems pretty silly, but in todays world of negative media hype, people are obviously buying into it.

Basically, Flasch, as Mac says, relax and let the system work. It has been working as well as can be expected up until this point. You just have to dig a little in our ever slanted news media to figure that out.

As for the soldiers in question, the only reason I can think that they acted like sheep is because they are a reserve unit. Maybe they are all from the same town and know each other for years and years and turning in Bob, who works down the street at the local bar and a town favorite might get concerned soldier Larry into trouble once they got back home.

I would prefer a larger Active duty force than relying on reserve units, but hey, we saved a lot of money by getting rid of our huge active duty force in the 1990's.

Well, these reserves come from all parts of the US and now we find the abuse is widespread in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I think the only reason why the investigation is starting to gain traction is because of the publicity. Some will call it Liberal bias but this stuff exists and as long as it isnt a lie made up by Jason Blair then it deserves to be put out there. The reservists/kids that they are court martialing dont know any better. Gen. Taguba admitted to poor training in fron tof congress. Its kinda tough to send them out there with poor training and then tell them that it is ENTIRELY their fault for not having the confidence to go around the chain of command. I mean, shit, some people working at Blockbuster have a hard time going around the chain of command when something like harrassment is going on and you expect an 18 yr. old who is in the midst of an arena that is wrought with abuse, tension, fatigue, and strain and say, "Why didnt you record your objections?" To whom? To the Spec. Interrogator commanding you to do XY or Z. Sorry, but I believe this goes much higher.

Why should this apply to Bush? Cuz i cant vote on Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or Rove. The only way i get to speak my mind in a way that is effective to an outcome is by voting. Like I said, I will vote against Bush this time and if things dont change I will vote against the next guy and so on and so on.

Huge Active duty? Isnt that what Rumsfeld is against? He speaks of a leaner, faster army....money spent on things outside of the human element. I too am for this but I think more needs to be spent on the CIA and NSA and their intelligence gathering capabilities. Wars will not be fought like in the past and he is right when he says its time for a new army.

From all the reports and comments and memos that have come down the line the admin and the higher ups have fostered this outcome and now are trying to put the fire out by sacrificing the foot soldiers. When the memos and investigation shows that the Gen. from Gitmo was applying the Bush doctrine and interpreting it the way that they let him, "Do what you must to get more intelligence." and then saying that detainees do not have rights that follow the genva conventions, what other outcome did they expect? How many foot soldiers are responsible, do you think before the admin. and its supporters have to turn their eyes upward? I do agree that those performing the act have some culpability but so do those in charge of setting the arena, setting the doctrine, training or lack thereof and creating the atmosphere.

Lack of responability. Ignorance of chain of command. Poor training. These are apparently issues with the reserve forces that I was completely unaware of prior to these dealings.

The first thing you learn in the military, whether you like it or not, is self-confidence. Your responsabilities, as these men and women of the prison detatchment are finding out, far out-weigh Johnny's problems at Blockbuster and they have a responability to be qualified at not only what they do, but as a basic soldier, sailor, or airman. If they cannot confidently say they are qualified in all aspects of their job (including protesting unlawful acts that go against basic humanity) then they are not qualified to put on the uniform. It's that simple.

Gen. Taguba would say otherwise and did in front of Congress. Do you say you have more knowledge on the subject then him? Mind you, he is the guy that the army assigned to investigate this matter.

Im saying when they leave the training base they may feel like they are prepared but when you land on the battlefield things change. It is quite obvious that there has been some gaps between what is going on and what is supposed to be going on, no? So where are those gaps coming from I ask? I refer back to Gen. Taguba.

EDIT: Also their lack of training didn't keep the gov't from shipping them out. It's the higher ups responsibility as well and some of you would like to say that they are immune of this, that it was the MP's fault entirely. Well that is naive, and that is spun, and that is why so many of you cannot "flip flop". When evidence shows something needs to be changed it takes a strong person to admit it, and unfortunately this pres. and this admin and the die hard supporters cannot.

I'm not spinning anything. I'm just giving you my basic working knowledge opinion of the military.

Dutch, it's useless at this point. I tried arguing by using facts and links and he responded by making up conversations and asserting that what he thinks will be the end result is the proven truth at this point. The 200 posts in this thread show Flasch already has his mind made up, and trying to argue against The Truth will get you nowhere.

Im willing to bet aequal number of people, regardless of whether they agree or not, can see my side of the argument. Wasn't one of your facts a ticket counter of letters sent home by military? How do you know their content?

Anyways, my facts throughout this thread are from articles, quotes, statements from the admin., etc. so please, I beg you, how is that conjecture? When making a point it is not completely out of line to site past events (kosovo) or state an outlook, it again boils down to, you in absolute defense of the admin even when mounting evidence shows negligence, among other things.


Thanks Dutch, Im just afraid it looks better on paper than in practice.

Just saw on the news tonight that one of accused abusers is claiming that Gen. Sanchez was present for at least one of the incidents, and knew full well what was going on. This could be getting even more interesting.

imagine that, we need to wait for proof though cuz it could be lies. Thats what Ive been told.

Just found the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48229-2004May22.html

Im willing to bet an equal number of people, regardless of whether they agree or not, can see my side of the argument. Wasn't one of your facts a ticket counter of letters sent home by military? How do you know their content?I'm not talking about your side of the argument. There are a number of people on the anti-war side of these threads who make compelling, logical cases backed up by evidence. Bumping a thread so you can reply in the morning (there is a page 2 you know, and a search function) and then making up a conversation and saying "I hate to say I told you so, but this will keep coming out and you'll see that this climbs all the way to Rumsfeld. Republicans and die hard Bushies will spin and spin and spin and a spin, until theyve spun themselves into a web of lies, whoops.....looks like thats already happening." doesn't meet that standard IMO. As for the second part, considering a) I admitted my mistake and removed the number and b) I was responding to a quote of yours which used 99% 3 times, I don't really think you should bring that up.

link one (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html)

link two (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm)

Nothing in there about weapons and technology deals; and Germany is NOT implicated in the oil contracts handed out from the list I saw there. It makes me question the authenticity of some of the arguments being thrown around here. So, again maybe I missed it, but I have never seen anything about weapons deals or Germany involvement. Apparently, facts are required to be proven on the abuse cases, but not from the other side of the aisle on the "European Conspiracy."

We are trained in what options we have to take if we are given unlawful orders. You talk about Bush covering his ass, well, those soldiers that committed these crimes against humanity better have covered their own asses if Donald Rumsfeld did in fact order these abuses. If I'm told to do those terrible things to any human being, I am documenting my protests up and down ever chain of command this side of Mai Lai and if I don't, I must hold myself responsable for being such an idiot.

We are all trained to follow "lawful" orders and we are all trained to use our chain of command in any protest, and we are trained to jump the chain when those above you are directly involved in the protest, or we can take it outside of our chain if that doesn't help our plea.



Well, that is the point really. What are "lawful" orders. If you have seen some of the things discussed in this thread, the administration chose not to apply the Geneva Convention to Afghanistan or Gitmo or enemy combatants anywhere. So, what is lawful becomes quite gray. Whether that same decision was made about Iraq is up in the air (although the Admin is now saying the Convention did apply in Iraq) but I could see the confusion amongst the military about whether it was. At a minimum, one could argue that the soldiers were following lawful orders based on the position taken by the Admin on how to treat enemy combatants. If you read the Admin memos discussed earlier, you would see that this was precisely the logic of deciding the Convention did not apply in order to prevent Bush and others from potentially being prosecuted for war crimes themselves.

I no doubt would expect to see a defense of this type in the court martials to come. Which is why I believe the Admin is now saying the Convention applied to Iraq in order to prevent such a defense.

Bishop:

1. Im not anti war...rmember I was/am pro war w/ more UN involvememnt.

2. I was bumping the thread so it was easier to find, and still was able to make a few comments on it through my migrane. Im sorry if that offended you.

3. The whole idea about debate is an attempt to prove the unproven while using a littany of facts, statments, quotes, arguments, etc. So my statements that are Unproven are what the other stuff tries to support/slash prove. thats the idea....I guess I could just accept what you say as factual in all merits and then we'll be fine? thats not wuite the way it is Supposed to work. Kinda like our admin. in a way. Believe us or we'll shut you down....I like to question and seek the truth, at all costs.

4. Like i had said, the abuse scandal is going down the path EXACTLY like I said it would. I said it would start to come out that the higher ups had a lot more to do with it....and it has. I said that there was more than 7 kids involved.....it has. I said that it would come out that Rumsfeld and Bush signed off on waiveing the Geneva conventions in the theaters over there...and it has. Im batting pretty good on this one. Im not happy about the abuse, I just wish our gov't 1. wouldnt have created this atmosphere that allowed this to happen. 2. Not tried to blame it on 7 lowly MP's 3. Accepted their own reports that the abuse was more rampant then they wanted to believe. 4. Done more to squash this bug when they found it, LAST FALL. Thats all.

"Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if 99% is bad stuff being reported Im not going to assume that 99% of that is wrong and that 99% of what is going on id good."

my quote from before....If you read it carefully while eliminating the numbers it reads..."Im not saying I believe it is all bad, but if a great deal of it is bad stuff being reported, Im not going to assume taht a great deal of that si wrong and a great deal of what IS going on is good."

what im trying to say is if the avalanche of crap is coming, perhaps the avalanche isn't ALL crap but it has a lot of crap in it.

Well, that is the point really. What are "lawful" orders. If you have seen some of the things discussed in this thread, the administration chose not to apply the Geneva Convention to Afghanistan or Gitmo or enemy combatants anywhere.

Lawful and Unlawful orders are very hard to define unless their is an example. For example, stacking naked prisoners into a pyramid in the middle of the night when everybody else is sleeping and the running across the room and doing "stage diving" into them while your buddies take pictures would be "unlawful" behaviour and thus anybody who ordered you to do that would be giving an "unlawful" order.

You don't have to trust me or take my word for it, but there are plenty of methods available to make somebody talk without disobeying the Geneva Convention or human dignity standards in any way shape or form.

I personally believe that every detainee from Iraq to Gitmo should fall under the Geneva Conventions and have no idea why the ones at Gitmo do not. That seems pretty illogical in the grand scheme of things that opens up a pandora's box of sorts. What if Iran and the USA have a war and the Iranian Clerics decide that America in general is unlawful and therefore it's soldiers are not "true" soldiers and thus don't fall under the accords of the Geneva conventions? It's dangerous territory with regards to the Gitmo detainees.

But anyway, General Sanchez or Donald Rumsfeld aren't going to stake their entire reputations on a bunch of local yokels from West Virginia (or wherever) in Abu Graib prison. They simply wouldn't allow that to happen, with no gain and everything to lose. Those people that did that are simply individuals with sick senses of humor.

Dutch, it is not just 7 low level MPs doing illegal stuff on their own. How far up the chain this goes, we don't know yet, but for sure, there was significant involvement by military intelligence. The effort the Pentagon put initially into trying to isolate this to a few individuals is not a good sign, especially when so much contradictory evidence has surfaced so quickly.

ClintL,

A vast majority of "illegal stuff" that happens in the military is done by low-level soldiers that are doing it behind their supervisors backs.

I don't doubt that, but there is too much evidence emerging for that to be the case here. Plus, there has been quite a lot of analysis that suggests the specific methods of abuse here are so perfectly designed to humiliate someone from a Muslim culture that it's extremely unlikely low-level soldiers would have had the knowledge to come up with it on their own.

Link: 2,000 Pages 'Missing' From Prisoner Abuse Report Pentagon Sent To Senate (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641078,00.html)

Excerpt:
"Another big stack of pages is causing concern over at the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is investigating abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Committee aides discovered belatedly that their copy of the 6,000-page report on prison abuses produced by Major General Antonio M. Taguba might not be complete. The copy they got after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony on May 7 was a thick document with 106 annexes, and it was quickly arranged into separate binders. Only later did the committee stack up all the pages, compare them with a ream of 6,000 blank pages and decide that at least 2,000 pages were missing. "We'd certainly like to know why they're missing," said Republican Senator John McCain. Pentagon spokesman Larry Dirita insisted, "If there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was an oversight." Committee staff members haven't actually counted the pages. Chairman John Warner will investigate this week to see what is missing."

Yeah, I'm sure this thing began and ended with seven soldiers. Especially considering the dozens of other investigations across Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nothing in there about weapons and technology deals; and Germany is NOT implicated in the oil contracts handed out from the list I saw there. It makes me question the authenticity of some of the arguments being thrown around here. So, again maybe I missed it, but I have never seen anything about weapons deals or Germany involvement. Apparently, facts are required to be proven on the abuse cases, but not from the other side of the aisle on the "European Conspiracy."

Germans supplying weapons to Iraq (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_716376,00.html)

Not tying to hread jack, but remember months ago that brewing controversy over Saudi Arabia and the White house having a secret agreement to have them produce more oil for us, and everyone was up in arms trying to deny it? Well this is probably a good thing for the US in the long run but it certainly points towards the consistency of the admin to hide stuff:

"Saudi Arabia has reassured the United States that it will supply up to 2 million barrels a day in additional crude oil if the market demands it, the U.S. energy secretary said Sunday. Saudi Arabia has pledged to pump an additional 600,000 barrels a day starting in June, lifting its total daily output to 9.1 million barrels, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told a news conference at an Amsterdam hotel after meeting privately with Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi."


Thank you Saudi Arabia, my car thanks you too.

now back to the abuse scandal, anything new today? I see that someone handed over a report missing pages....

I don't doubt that, but there is too much evidence emerging for that to be the case here. Plus, there has been quite a lot of analysis that suggests the specific methods of abuse here are so perfectly designed to humiliate someone from a Muslim culture that it's extremely unlikely low-level soldiers would have had the knowledge to come up with it on their own.

I'm concerned about what is evidence and what is not evidence. What's true and what's not.

I think many of us know how to humiliate somebody, regardless of their religion. And as someone who's spent 3 years in the middle east, you learn quick what NOT to do. Common sense would dictate that you NOT do it. Just trying to provide some personal insight to the debate.

But from my understanding, a good 95% of the abuses mentioned took place on a single night and were not Islamic-bashing but "stupid human tricks" that were done "for fun" and not to gain information.

But from my understanding, a good 95% of the abuses mentioned took place on a single night and were not Islamic-bashing but "stupid human tricks" that were done "for fun" and not to gain information.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Everything I have read completely contradicts everything you said in that statement.

It's my understanding from the information I've read in the newspapers. It's not based on hard-core research. But that's what we are talking about. What we read in the newspapers or on the internet or watch on TV.

Perception is reality in this argument until all the facts are out.

(This actually brings up a great example of how we can become very jaded if we allow the media to push their agenda on us...one of us is going to be misled because of what news we've picked up on. I must admit I haven't being researching this as it's quite disgusting to want to know more about. So I could be way off base, but I did think most of the humiliating crimes were done on one night by those that are already in trouble.)

The Red Cross report Strongly contradicts that statement and if what you say is true then it wouldve happened on the same night, in multiple prisons and in multiple countries. This would be highly unlikely, a possibility, but unlikely. Remember the report from the general NEVER said one night in question. The reports about the Red Cross reports involve the Afghanistan theatre, Gitmo, and Iraq (not just Abu Garaib). I must say I have my doubts that the thousand or so pictures and video came from one night. Call me crazy.

Right. I don't know of any such pictures coming from Gitmo or Afghanistan. I have just heard of "abuses everywhere to include Gitmo and Afghanistan". The only pictures that involve abuses are the ones from Abu Graib. That I know of.

Again, I'm just going with what I know. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just want to make sure that the truth is what is told, nothing more and nothing less. And anybody who acted unlawfully or illegally be punished for their crimes.

I will not however, agree to go on witch hunts for the sake of political gain.

me either, those that are responsible or who contributed to the crimes, should be punished like those who actually committed them. We agree. All we both then is the truth. I am all for that as well. Welp, me and you agree.


edit: just saw this headline and I undrestand that it has always been this way but i find it interesting that something so unintrusive is banned absolutely outright. Ill take "hiding something for $1000 Alex." God forbid the world possibly have a glimpse of something that "we say we dont do" going on.


LONDON (AFP) - Cellphones fitted with digital cameras have been banned in US army installations in Iraq (news - web sites) on orders from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a business newspaper reported.


AFP-Pool/File Photo



Quoting a Pentagon (news - web sites) source, The Business newspaper said the US Defense Department believes that some of the damning photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were taken with camera phones.


"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.


Disturbing new photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse, which the US government had reportedly tried to keep hidden, were published Friday in the Washington Post newspaper.


The photos emerged along with details of testimony from inmates at Abu Ghraib who said they were sexually molested by female soldiers, beaten, sodomized and forced to eat food from toilets.

The abuse will be amply covered by the press in the coming weeks, so I'll avoid arguing about that. Just two quick points. What Dutch seems to be talking about is the publically available photos, which (probably) all took place the same night by a small group of people, so he's technically correct with what he says there, but is missing the bigger picture. As for banning the picture phones, it makes a ton of sense. Nobody really cared when the Army reported there was abuse, or when they reported they would be court-martialing people for the abuse, but as soon as a few pictures came out Abu Ghraib suddenly became 95% of the coverage of Iraq. The lesson to me here is, since some abuse will undoubtedly occur, just avoid visual mediums and it won't be a big deal to the media. I would still like to talk more about this stuff,UN = world support = not hate US as much, success in Iraq. UN = NATO same amount of $ same US support. Us cannot pull out, turn over to UN.so I was wondering if you could expand on those thoughts.

We should be happy when people record their misdeeds, not view it as a negative.

We (read: the media) should also keep it in perspective. If we had a national media acting the way they do today, I'm not sure if we would have won the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War II or the Korean War.

Im glad to see Bush bringing in the UN now....smart move to lean a little mroe towards the Kerry line of thinking on this one.

The UN will put a more palatable face on it for the world to swallow thus leading to wider and more acceptable feeling on the Iraq occupation. thats what i meant without going into great detail.

We (read: the media) should also keep it in perspective.

I think they are, and have acted very responsibly in reporting on this scandal. The military and the Pentagon are the ones who have been trying to obscure the truth.

There's that word again.

Im glad to see Bush bringing in the UN now....smart move to lean a little mroe towards the Kerry line of thinking on this one.

The UN will put a more palatable face on it for the world to swallow thus leading to wider and more acceptable feeling on the Iraq occupation. thats what i meant without going into great detail.

Bush has been asking for UN Support from the beginning.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

-President Bush to the UN General Assembly

After President Bush spoke at 8PM Eastern time, the CNN's first question to some expert guy was "Was there anything new in this speech or was it all repacked information?"

Repackaged information? Does she forget who she works for? They invented repackaging information! :)

strangely, Saddam said he no longer had WMD's, and you don't believe him. Bush says he wants UN support, and you believe him. Could it be that both were just paying lip service until they could do their own thing?

No, I believed the Democratic leaderships that said that Saddam had WMD.

i don't think you understand what the statements said.

Im glad to see Bush bringing in the UN now....smart move to lean a little mroe towards the Kerry line of thinking on this one.

The UN will put a more palatable face on it for the world to swallow thus leading to wider and more acceptable feeling on the Iraq occupation. thats what i meant without going into great detail.It'll be interesting to see how it works out. Getting a UN Resolution authorizing the US-led Security force is very different than turning control over to the UN. I'd gladly accept the former, but am vehemently opposed to the latter. Where in the middle we end up I do not know.I think they are, and have acted very responsibly in reporting on this scandal. The military and the Pentagon are the ones who have been trying to obscure the truth.The military and the Pentagon told the press about Abu Ghraib and suspended some of the people months ago. That hardly seems like a cover-up to me.

To take one small example, if al-Zarqawi did behead Nick Berg in retaliation for Abu Ghraib, it wasn't because these abuses were committed. It was because they were widely publicized. I guess that and the other Americans who will be killed because of the increased resentment would just be acceptable collateral damage for reporting the truth, right?

Face it, the media, even before there was any indication it may have been part of Army policy, was taking this incident and plastering it everywhere, giving it 24/7 coverage at the expense of almost every other story from Iraq and giving the appearance that this was what was going on in Iraq. Nevermind that even if it is revealed to be as widespread as the worst case scenario there were at most a few thousand Iraqis treated like this over the course of a year, most guilty of horrible crimes. Nevermind that it will increase anti-war sentiment in the US, making it increasingly likely we will pull out with anything less than unqualified success and condemn the Iraqis to a Civil War and continued tyranny. Nevermind that it would be gleefully seized upon by our enemies and used as propaganda for the next few years to whip up anti-American sentiment and undoubtedly lead to many more American deaths.

To take the historical perspective, if we had a media focusing on setbacks during the Revolutionary War we might not have won our Independence. If we had a media focusing on the sacking and burning of Washington by the dirty Canadiens and calling for the resignation of our leading commanders and the President we probably would have lost that one. If we had a media focusing on the abuses at Andersonville Prison or the many major setbacks suffered by the Northern Army where many, many thousands of soldiers died we probably wouldn't have a united country today. If we had a media trying to get FDR to apologize for Pearl Harbor, or focusing on our losses at Coral Sea, our mistreatment of Japanese POW's, the hundreds that died during the training exercise for D-Day, or the "quagmire" of the Battle of the Bulge we would either still have the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists in control or the Soviets would have taken over both and we'd still be fighting the Cold War. If the media succeeds in driving us from Iraq we will lose the War on Terror, unless the first catastrophic attack on US soil reawakens people to the opponents they face and the necessity of winning. Unfortunately, America, despite being better than its opponents and trying hard to do the best it can, isn't perfect. You can either accept that there will be some abuses and some setbacks, condemn them when they happen, do your best to prevent them in the future, but most importantly move on towards victory because defeat is much worse for everyone involved or wallow in self-disgust at the small number of abuses committed by your country and then bitch at your political leaders for not preventing the next attack against the country. The media as a whole has chosen #2.

strangely, Saddam said he no longer had WMD's, and you don't believe him. Bush says he wants UN support, and you believe him. Could it be that both were just paying lip service until they could do their own thing?Saddam said he no longer had WMD's to avoid an invasion of his country and his deposition as leader of Iraq. While Bush does not want, and has never really wanted to give, the UN Control over the invasion or reconstruction of Iraq, I'm sure any support (money, troops, resolution authorizing us) they want to give us would be appreciated.

>The military and the Pentagon are the ones who have been trying to obscure the truth.

You continue to ignore the evidence. They announced an official investigation into prisoner abuse in January and announced that 6 individuals had been charged with prisoner abuse on March 20th - 6 weeks or so before the pictures came out.

The question that perhaps needs asking is why the press virtually ignored these two announcements.

strangely, Saddam said he no longer had WMD's, and you don't believe him. Bush says he wants UN support, and you believe him. Could it be that both were just paying lip service until they could do their own thing?

Saddam said a lot of things to a lot of differnt nations in a lot of different ways.

Bush asked for support from the UN in that speech. The response from France was that they would veto any such request for cooperation.

Saddam said a lot of things to a lot of differnt nations in a lot of different ways.

Bush asked for support from the UN in that speech. The response from France was that they would veto any such request for cooperation.

What a SURPRISE! :rolleyes:

France liked the kick-backs they were getting from Saddam.

They did say that they wanted to give the UN inspectors more time...I dont think that they ever said NEVER.

The newsmedai is supposed to report their findings. It is in countries without free press that the gov't. controls when and what comes out, if at all. I am certainly glad we do not live in a country like that, as Im sure you do to. When reading these reports I think the fresh air on these things is much better than hiding them, leaking them, and choosing what comes out...IMO thats tantamount to censorship and in this regards, whether true or not, leads the rest of the world to believe we are hiding something and are basically hypocrites.

Bishop, you mentioned somewhere else about AL Qaeda, the al saud family, etc. I couldnt agree with you more. Going into Iraq shouldve been done solely on humanitarian issues alone...but revealing truths about those countries that pay lip service to controlling terrorism and their breeding grounds is something that should be paid more attention to. Saddam is where he should be, I think we did and have been going about it wrong (unilaterally in most respects), and for that I am glad but We couldve gone down a different road, had a better image while doing it, and gotten a better outcome at the same point.

You said that Arab feelings towards the US have not taken a hit since this came out. Im sorry, but where do you get these numbers? I put this up with the bean counter on military letters coming home. If Im to believe what youre saying then I need to think that all of a sudden there are more cameras in hostile area of Arab countries, not more hatred, right? That the quantity of media is more not the quantity of people? that I am not buying. If the numbers among americans that are in favor and supportive has fallen, you beg to stand that the Arab countries intenral sentiment remains the same. I find that Absolutely hard to believe considering only one Arab country came out to denounce the beheading of Berg, and the Arab summit was so anti american (outside of a few countries). That one im gonna need to see some numbers for.

They did say that they wanted to give the UN inspectors more time...I dont think that they ever said NEVER.

The newsmedai is supposed to report their findings. It is in countries without free press that the gov't. controls when and what comes out, if at all. I am certainly glad we do not live in a country like that, as Im sure you do to. When reading these reports I think the fresh air on these things is much better than hiding them, leaking them, and choosing what comes out...IMO thats tantamount to censorship and in this regards, whether true or not, leads the rest of the world to believe we are hiding something and are basically hypocrites.

Bishop, you mentioned somewhere else about AL Qaeda, the al saud family, etc. I couldnt agree with you more. Going into Iraq shouldve been done solely on humanitarian issues alone...but revealing truths about those countries that pay lip service to controlling terrorism and their breeding grounds is something that should be paid more attention to. Saddam is where he should be, I think we did and have been going about it wrong (unilaterally in most respects), and for that I am glad but We couldve gone down a different road, had a better image while doing it, and gotten a better outcome at the same point.

You said that Arab feelings towards the US have not taken a hit since this came out. Im sorry, but where do you get these numbers? I put this up with the bean counter on military letters coming home. If Im to believe what youre saying then I need to think that all of a sudden there are more cameras in hostile area of Arab countries, not more hatred, right? That the quantity of media is more not the quantity of people? that I am not buying. If the numbers among americans that are in favor and supportive has fallen, you beg to stand that the Arab countries intenral sentiment remains the same. I find that Absolutely hard to believe considering only one Arab country came out to denounce the beheading of Berg, and the Arab summit was so anti american (outside of a few countries). That one im gonna need to see some numbers for.

Arab summits are USUALLY anti-American...mostly because of our support of Israel.

Saddam said a lot of things to a lot of differnt nations in a lot of different ways.

Bush asked for support from the UN in that speech. The response from France was that they would veto any such request for cooperation.
perhaps you don't understand the concept of "lip service"

>The military and the Pentagon are the ones who have been trying to obscure the truth.

You continue to ignore the evidence. They announced an official investigation into prisoner abuse in January and announced that 6 individuals had been charged with prisoner abuse on March 20th - 6 weeks or so before the pictures came out.

The question that perhaps needs asking is why the press virtually ignored these two announcements.

Because the military and Pentagon downplayed the seriousness and extent of the abuse. It wasn't until the pictures came out that there was really and understanding of what was going on. And don't forget, the military and Pentagon sat on their asses for months while the Red Cross was complaining about it. I just don't see how the military and Pentagon get much credit here for candor.

Personally, I thought the last Brittany Spears HBO Special was a little more hardcore than the prison photos. As others have said, the press knew about the investigations of abuse weeks before any photos came to light. The major question should be...why is it suddenly such a BIGGER story because there are pictures?

Arab summits are USUALLY anti-American...mostly because of our support of Israel.


exactly and this one was no different...proving the point.

About the media hanging on to the story....

so were expected to believe that one media outlet wouldnt love to scoop the rest and get this out as quickly as possible....that they all got togeher discussed it and then sat on it until they all deemed it useful....then why didnt the right wing media let it out and try to quell the firestorm before it even started? Im not buying it.....the admin. didnt do MUCH about it cuz they didnt think it would get out.....well it did, and when it did, it blew up. Now they are scrambling.

BTW, i find the banning of cellphone cameras inetersting cuz they allow cell phones, they just wont allow the cameras. Why is one part of the phone worse then the other, cuz things like this can come out. Sounds shady and you all know how i feel about shadiness.

I just don't see how the military and Pentagon get much credit here for candor.
Agreed. But would you agree that they shouldn't get total blame for lying and covering-up then? I think that's the whole point here - the truth lies somewhere in the middle, not to the extremes as some are wanting to put them.

Besides, you need to ask yourself the question of how much should you really know? Or more accurately, how much should you be able to read in the newspapers? It seems that the perception that I have is the motivation is not truth (because as the movie said, you don't want to know the truth) but to promote election year propaganda. I am not saying this applies to what we are talking about here but you have to realize that when one talks about the "truth", 1) they don't know the truth any more than anyone else does and 2) the only truth that is worth promoting are the ones that are anti-Bush. So forgive me if I am very cynical of anyone here speaking in the name of truth or pretending to take the "high road".

Just a historical tangent: Read about George Washington use of intelligence, lies and deception in Rev War, as well as the extreme propaganda machine of the Sons of Liberty. You might also want to add Lincoln's Secret War or maybe about the homefront in WW2 where freedom of speech was restricted for security reasons and the amount of misinformation coming out of the State Dept. With all of the promotion of security in today's polls (remember, a majority wants security over privacy), we cannot or should not know everything. There always have been the very real concept of national morale and the will of the people to defend against and to engage the enemies. Just some historical readings I have been doing lately.

i have stated clearly that I will vote against anyone who i feel is untruthful. It may mean that im voting for someone new every 4 years but at least it'll make me feel right.

perhaps you don't understand the concept of "lip service"

Easy Mac,

After that plea for help the UN (led by France in this particular case) said "NO". Had the French said "YES" to join the coalition against Saddam Hussein and then the US said "No thanks" then you have a basis to call that plea for help "lip service".

Saddam Hussein was the master of "lip service" starting with the agreement to the 1991 Cease Fire and following through with 17 busted UN Resolutions.

Facts.

Because the military and Pentagon downplayed the seriousness and extent of the abuse. It wasn't until the pictures came out that there was really and understanding of what was going on. And don't forget, the military and Pentagon sat on their asses for months while the Red Cross was complaining about it. I just don't see how the military and Pentagon get much credit here for candor.

But...the Pentagon wasn't sitting on their.....oh forget it. :)

i have stated clearly that I will vote against anyone who i feel is untruthful. It may mean that im voting for someone new every 4 years but at least it'll make me feel right.
Then I will have fully expected and will continue to expect that you will not be voting for anyone for any elected office. If not, then you are either a hypocrite or naive.