Rummy!

[D'Artag-NOT]

If Bush were smart he would sack him as a scapegoat for not passing the abuse information up to him - and for failng to plan adequately for the post regime change era and to prove he's "a decisive leader" willing to make difficult decisions where his authority and credibility are at stake.

"If Bush were smart"--no, no, I won't touch that one. Too easy.

The pity is that the whole atmosphere of the Bush administration is such that he relies on his subordinates to relay information, enabling him to plead ignorance when things blow up. What a difference it would make to have a President who actively seeks information out, who wants to know what's going on.

And please, don't let me get started about his religiosity . . .

[Tireur]

[QUOTE=D'Artag-NOT The pity is that the whole atmosphere of the Bush administration is such that he relies on his subordinates to relay information, :[/QUOTE]


You think this is unique to the Bush administration? I thought that's what "subordinates" were for. Because the "boss" can't do all the communicating and coordinating on his own.

That's why it's called an "administration".

Maybe it's a misperception of mine, but I thought all presidents did this.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Question, who thinks its time for a total overthrow of power? It says in the constition that if the government becomes corrupt it is the duty of the civilians to overthrow. How much farther do we go before its time to go all anarchy? I dont know if we are dead yet, but if you put a frog in the water, and slowly turn it up, it wont jump out..... are we a frog?

[jeff]

You think this is unique to the Bush administration? I thought that's what "subordinates" were for. Because the "boss" can't do all the communicating and coordinating on his own.

That's why it's called an "administration".

Maybe it's a misperception of mine, but I thought all presidents did this.

The objective shouldn't be to avoid accountability, or to provide "plausible deniability" (that wonderful expression from the Nixon administration).

[Tireur]

The objective shouldn't be to avoid accountability, or to provide "plausible deniability" (that wonderful expression from the Nixon administration).

Although I agree with you on that completely, I guess I didn't hear on npr that someone had discovered Bush doing that.

I'm sure we will now have a special prosecutor.

[Tireur]

The objective shouldn't be to avoid accountability, or to provide "plausible deniability" (that wonderful expression from the Nixon administration).

You mean like "what "is" is?

[D'Artag-NOT]

[QUOTE=Tireur

You think this is unique to the Bush administration? I thought that's what "subordinates" were for. Because the "boss" can't do all the communicating and coordinating on his own.

That's why it's called an "administration".

Maybe it's a misperception of mine, but I thought all presidents did this.[/QUOTE]

What I was saying was, the culture of the Bush White House seems to be that Bush never knows anything until someone tells him. He keeps reminding us that he's a "war president", so you would think he'd be demanding daily briefings on how the war is going, what problems were cropping up, etc. It's the boss who sets the tone in any organization, and it seems in this one the tone is one of--to put it charitably--extreme incuriosity.

Question, who thinks its time for a total overthrow of power?

It's called an "election", DFP. We have 'em every four years. Check your local listings.

[Tireur]

Do you think the President's day is not filled with briefings? Granted, he has to do the photo ops for the various senate and congressional constituents, but, I doubt he plays video games all day long.

Unless you expect him to micromanage every detail of the conflict, which would require him to be in every location at every minute of ever day.

Do you have someone on the inside who tells you he is disinterested?

[jeff]

You mean like "what "is" is?

I truly wish that the most shameful thing the current administration was involved with was whether oral sex was sex. Instead, we're talking about war crimes and violation of the Geneva Convention. I suggest you not trivialize the issue we're facing here: deeply shameful behavior and its coverup, and gross incompetence and arrogance of this administration on matters vital to our security.

The White House says (I read today) that Rumsfeld knew in January, and communicated it to Bush then. The International Red Cross reported the problem months ago, as did Amnesty International other groups. This is hardly micromanaging. This is a catastrophe of major consequences reflecting a failure from top to bottom.

[telkanuru]

Um... call me strange, but if something as damaging to the US image as this appears, I'd say it would be fowarded back to washington, and then back to the politicians who deal with diplomacy and the like. Knowing somehting like this is in Bush's best political interest, and moreover, acting on it is his job. It is in no way micromanaging. This goes double for Rummy, whose job it is to micromanage these things.

[Tireur]

I truly wish that the most shameful thing the current administration was involved with was whether oral sex was sex. Instead, we're talking about war crimes and violation of the Geneva Convention. I suggest you not trivialize the issue we're facing here: deeply shameful behavior and its coverup, and gross incompetence and arrogance of this administration on matters vital to our security.

The White House says (I read today) that Rumsfeld knew in January, and communicated it to Bush then. The International Red Cross reported the problem months ago, as did Amnesty International other groups. This is hardly micromanaging. This is a catastrophe of major consequences reflecting a failure from top to bottom.

I am not trivializing anything. You said presidents should avoid responsibility. I was asking if that was what you meant.

Apparently this was reported in January and several investigations were begun.

Perhaps you mean it should have been shouted to the world before we knew what had really happened. I would disagree with this. I don't think we need to know everything all the time. Especially before all the facts are in.

[Tireur]

Um... call me strange, but if something as damaging to the US image as this appears, I'd say it would be fowarded back to washington, and then back to the politicians who deal with diplomacy and the like. Knowing somehting like this is in Bush's best political interest, and moreover, acting on it is his job. It is in no way micromanaging. This goes double for Rummy, whose job it is to micromanage these things.

OK, you're strange.

I don't think it's his job to micromanage either. That's what (you hope) competent subordinates are for. Again, internal investigations were underway from the begining. It's not (hopefully) a pervasive practice. It only involved a few people. Let the investigations play out. Isn't that what we do?

[Tireur]

Why aren't we calling for apologies and investigations from the people who shot, hung and set fire to our people? Or does that not violate any conventions on human rights?

[Soldier]

Why aren't we calling for apologies and investigations from the people who shot, hung and set fire to our people? Or does that not violate any conventions on human rights?

Because we're already engaging them in open combat.

[telkanuru]

Yet if something this important came up, don't you think the president would at least be notified of it?

And I have a sneaking suspicion that the investigations will procede with greater rapidity and go more into depth since the news is global.

[Tireur]

Because we're already engaging them in open combat.

Yes, I know, it wasn't a real question.

[Tireur]

Yet if something this important came up, don't you think the president would at least be notified of it?

And I have a sneaking suspicion that the investigations will procede with greater rapidity and go more into depth since the news is global.

Yes, I think he would be, I don't think he should jump up and start shouting it.


Yes, your sneaking suspicion is correct, just like in all such cases. Once the press gets hold of it it's a red ball. Doesn't necessariy mean they will have any more of a fair resolution.

[Artisan]

Rummy resigning, investigations, prosecuting the offenders, it doesn't matter how the administration handles this - its too late. The latest reason for invading Iraq has been to "free the people from an oppressive regime" and no amount of spin can change the impression left upon the arabic world that the US is hypocritical, and the true reasons for the war are otherwise. Al Qaeda couldn't have engineered a better publicity coup. US attempts to "manage" this shameful embarassment will only look like misinformation and cover up. They will make a best effort to control the damage done to the campaign, but the international effect is another giant straw in the haybail of a failing foreign policy.

[Artisan]

...and everytime I look at the news, it just gets worse. Rummy's saying there's lots more pictures and video that he hopes don't get out, and:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/...ged/index.html

The woman soldier who had the prisoner on a leash is 5 months pregnant by one of the other abusers... wow, what fun they must have been having. Fine examples of American ideals. Sheesh.

[Tireur]

deeply shameful behavior and its coverup, .

Yes, deeply shameful behavior, I'm not really sure about the coverup tho.

Seems this, the incidents and investigations, were reported by the Washington Post back in March, if not sooner. Apparently, no one, especially the AP, thought it was a story worth repeating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff
I truly wish that the most shameful thing the current administration was involved with was whether oral sex was sex.

I guess my thougt was, if you don't expect your leaders to accept responsibility for something "trivial" how do you expect them to take responsibility for anything.....