Rummy!

[Tireur]

[QUOTE=Artisan Fine examples of American ideals. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]



I suppose everytime an American commits a crime, it's the President's responsibility?

I guess Kerry is not a viable option because he claims to have committed "atrocities" himself?

[jeff]

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.....

It was reported by Rumsfeld to Bush in January. Did they think it was going to get better? I would say that the delay of coverage puts to rest the liberal bias argument. No rush to judgement here.

Important issues - affecting the reputation and safety of the nation and relating to the SWORN DUTIES of those involved - demand a higher degree of responsibility. It is childish to act as if Clinton's sexual misconduct gives a free pass to the horrific malfeasance we're talking about here. Or, do conservatives expect a free pass for the rest of eternity, no matter how deep an offence is committed by somebody on their side?

[Tireur]

Important issues - affecting the reputation and safety of the nation and relating to the SWORN DUTIES of those involved - demand a higher degree of responsibility. It is childish to act as if Clinton's sexual misconduct gives a free pass to the horrific malfeasance we're talking about here. Or, do conservatives expect a free pass for the rest of eternity, no matter how deep an offence is committed by somebody on their side?

I don't think it gives a free pass to anyone for anything. I just find it amusing (not really, interesting I, guess is better) that liberals as well as conservatives think they get to pick and choose what their leaders are "responsible" for.

And I think it did affect the reputation of the presidency and to a lesser degree the nation. Some could say the safety as well, since the man was apparently getting his rocks off while on the phone with, who was it at the time, Yeltsin. And was apparently letting bin Laden go while focusing on Monica........

Come on, Jeff, a man who takes responsibility for his actions doesn't do it in degrees.

I agree with you about this to a certain degree. I may not have seen some things, but what I have seen here is a little humiliation, which,I imagine, has been done by soldiers of every army since the dawn of time.

I would imagine this prisoners could teach the Americans a thing or too about real torture.

You know, dipping people in acid, dissecting them while still alive, gang rape and mutilation, raping and killing their children in front of them, etc........

I'm not excusing them, it's a disgraceful thing they did and deserves punishment. But to blame the President for it??????

What are we actually blaming him of? Not going to the New York Times for it before all the facts are in? This is a war after all and to announce this would have done exactly what it did. Cast dispersions on the entire force because of the actions of a few. Like it or not some things do need to be covered up, at least for a while.

And this wasn't. It was being investigated and was reported. As I said, AP (who I assume is a puppet of Bush) chose not to run with it until it became a red ball..........

I do not believe the people need to know everything. At least not right away.

There are still things we don't know about WWII. Who are we going to accuse of convering that up?

[Purple Fencer]

An interesting perspective on the Abu Gharof events... go to http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and check out the blog for May 8

[Tireur]

From the WSJ:

The White House thought it could draw off some of the pressure on the boilers by dripping word that the president conveyed some unhappiness to Don Rumsfeld. And maybe he did. But leaking it to pacify the moral hounds only set off more howling and yelping, this time for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. No news story that I read on this included a subordinate clause identifying Sen. Tom Harkin as a 24/7 opponent of the war, George Bush and the horse he rode in on.

Conceivably Mr. Bush got more bang with his two turns on Arab television, explaining American values. The news out of Turkey last week was of an Islamic father who ritually strangled his daughter with wire because kidnappers had raped her. And most Arabs under 30 recall that in the early 1980s Syria's Hafez al-Assad, after an assassination attempt, murdered 1,000 Islamic inmates at Tadmur Military Prison. The vagaries of life with dictatorships in Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al., may have left the average Muslim with a better understanding of "atrocity" than the Appalled Pundits Society in America.

[jeff]

And the point of reciting atrocities committed by others (who I've despised for many years) has exactly what relevance to our behavior? We went to war to export democracy (Bush says), not to re-open Saddam's prisons and brutalize prisoners -- not all of which are suspected, let alone convicted of being terrorists.

And the point of bringing up Clinton's misbehavior has exactly what relevance? It does seem to get cited every time somebody on the Right gets in trouble. And your suggestion that he let Bin Laden go because he was getting it on with Monica is nonsense. More accurate to say that Clinton had to spend all his political capital fighting the highly partisan attacks on him, rather than on foreign affairs. I already see that argument from the White House, saying it's unpatriotic to challenge anything they do.

Cover of The Economist, a conservative, pro-Iraq war publication is Resign, Rumsfeld. I recommend the full-page editorial which says why Rumsfeld should resign, or Bush should fire him.
.
I think Bush has the opportunity to make a positive impression on the Arab world (actually, the world in general) by showing that we live up to the values we claim to have, by showing that this sort of behavior is not accepted, and that accountability goes all the way to the top.

[Artisan]

I suppose everytime an American commits a crime, it's the President's responsibility?

Didn't say it was, nor did I mean to imply that the actions of a knocked -up private and her violence -prone prison guard boyfriend represent an example of Bush's hypocracy. I'm simply pointing out that to non-american eyes, and in the polarizing glare of the soundbite driven media we don't look so wonderfully altruistic.

Besides, deployed soldiers aren't the same as citizens on home soil - they are the tools - the forceful hand of the govenment, and representatives of the Nation as a whole. They are expect to perform and live by a higher standard. ("The few, the proud the chosen, Be all you can be, etc...) If they are being sent to fight a war for human rights and moral standards and democracy, then each solder has an obligation to at least "try" to play the part. At least don't record photos and videos of you misbehavior. Thats just plain stupid.
With all the attention paid by the administration to the "selling" of the war and its justifictions to the American public, someone might have sent a memo to the commanders in the field to remind the troops that "hey... lets do our jobs properly - appearances DO matter.

No doubt, any organisation, military or otherwise is going to have some bad apples. People enter the military for all kinds of reasons, some for rightiousness and patriotism, some for lack of other options, and some for personal gain - to get that school loan or escape the limitations of their surroundings.

It is/was, the military's obligation (and ultimately Rumsfeld's, then Bush's) to make sure and provide for their charges the training and supervision (preparedness) for the military personel to overcome their personal motivations and weaknesses to do their jobs professionally, especially in such a sensitive area. Over and over we have seen a lack of planning on behalf of Rumsfeld (...we'll be in and out in five weeks, months, years...which is it?) and the the administration. I believe it is mostly due to the arrogance born of the self rightiousness that is endemic of this administration. The behavior of these few soldiers stems from this same flavor of arrogance. Is it much different from the arrogance of any oppressive dictator that allows him to commit genocides against people considerd to be less than equal?

[Tireur]

John Kerry said he committed atrocites in Vietnam. Even tho I think the things he described come closer to "atrocity" than this, I cut him some slack, because, hell, war is hell.

Since he started running for President he has backed off and said "Well, maybe "atrocity" was not the right word. The democrats are all calling him a "war hero".

I haven't seen anyone claiming he should resign from the Senate or withdraw from the race. Are you claiming he should. I don't think so....

No, I'm sure it was Nixon's fault for not seeing he was trained properly.

[Artisan]

John Kerry said ... Are you claiming he should. I don't think so....
No, I'm sure it was Nixon's fault for not seeing he was trained properly.

No one in this thread has mentioned Kerry - only you have. I only referred to the administration's needs and reactions regarding the campaign. A criticism of the president is not a de facto vote for his opponent, it is simply a criticism. My vote in november will be a vote against Bush, not a vote for Kerry. Unfortunately the whole democratic party's selection process this year became one of selecting not the best candidate, but the one with the best chance of winning - not the same thing in this imperfect system.

Was it Nixons fault that atrocities occurred in Nam? No. But he was responsible for sending them there or pulling them out. Was it Bush's fault that a poorly trained PFC was impregnated by another soldier, or that there are bad apples in the forces? NO. Clearly he stands against this type of behavior.
The question at hand is one of responsibility, which is a little different than "fault." That these soldiers were sent to Iraq, that they apparently had insufficient supervision due to probems with either planning, training, manpower or command structure and failed to properly do their jobs of guarding enemy prisoners, that had little awareness of how their actions could betray the US mission is the responsibility of the command structure, and ultimately of Rumsfeld - and Bush - even Rumsfeld owned up to that in the hearing yesterday...so where is the debate?

Rumsfeld also acknowledgd that if he was or became ineffective he would resign. The real issue then is how does "effective" get defined and by whom. One could argue that with hindsight, looking at the number of miscalculations and misrepresentations the US has made since the beginning of this administration's handling of Iraq that Rumsfeld should have resigned months ago.

[Inquartata]

Once again I'll bring up the Yee incident. Huge "scandal", and pundits and people with political opinions everywhere went nuts rendering premature and underinformed judgements. All of which proved wide of the mark when none of the charges proved to have enough merit to cause the military, where upwards of 90% of courts martial result in guilty findings, to press for any punishment whatsoever.

And now we are calling for someone's head based on such wonderful logic as "I don't like him" and "he seems arrogant" and "The Economist says so".
( Not that Rumsfeld's ouster would actually satisfy anyone---it'd only sharpen their taste for blood. Already certain parties---I'll leave it to you to gess which ones---have been intimating that even Rumsfeld's resignation "wouldn't be enough". )

There's also another dimension: human beings, even the best and brightest, have flaws. Who out there expects that we'll ever find saints to fill leadership positions? No one, I take it. So we use flawed ones perforce, but they are the most capable we can get ( hopefully ). Now if we go discarding these we must necessarily replace them...with someone inferior. Someone less informed, less far along the learning curve, someone less "up to speed". Well enough if it is for a personal failure or mistake. But to assess guilt by proxy, and demand their replacement on that basis?

Are we to gut the whole chain of command along the way as well? All the intervening generals, colonels, majors and captains who "knew"? Maybe Bremer into the bargain? Or is just the top man sacrificial lamb enough? Oops, not the top man, though I'm sure lots of people would love to, but just don't quite dare, insist that it ought to be Bush resigning...

What, BTW, do the critics among you feel Rumsfeld ought to have done when first he heard of the problem? Called NBC and the NY Times? Resigned reflexively? Joined the Kerry campaign in atonement? Retreated to a monastery? Committed seppuku?

What would any of you do, if you found out that distant subordinates in your job or some organization in which you are involved were engaged in wrongdoing? Would YOU volunteer to resign in symbolic guilt, or would you want the actual perpetrators brought to account?

Those who actually did the things in question should be punished according to the law. Those up the chain of command who countenanced them should as well. And when I hear evidence that Rumsfeld not only knew but allowed them to continue---not merely waited for the results of an investigation already in progress, but actively declined to take action to stop violations still going on---then and only then will it be time to be calling for his head on a pike...

[Philistine]

{snip}
What, BTW, do the critics among you feel Rumsfeld ought to have done when first he heard of the problem?
{snip}

Among other things, read the report. Given the report with the pictures to the President.

--Philistine

[Artisan]

"The Economist says so".

The Economist EDITORIAL makes a compelling and logical argument, they do not say "because we don' like him" , or " because we say so" You'd have to actually read the item to comment on it.

What would any of you do, if you found out that distant subordinates in your job or some organization in which you are involved were engaged in wrongdoing? Would YOU volunteer to resign in symbolic guilt, or would you want the actual perpetrators brought to account?

You minimize the actual imact of what occurred. This is not a case of some white collar corporate malfeasance. Rumsfeld is not merely "involved" in the organization - he is the head of it, and along with that leadership goes not only the ultimate authority but the ultimate responsibility as well. This war is about history changing ideas and ideals. It is a war being fought for the concepts of Democracy, Human Rights and the prevalence of "good over evil" according to the president. As such there is less lattitude for "oops...my bad, can we get a do-over? We'll try harder next time."
You simply cannot get caught tourturing prisoners in the same prison that Sadam tourtured prisoners in. Its a huge "gaff" and requires a big gesture to help rectify it and provide the "appearance" of the moral high ground that Bush says he stands for. Politically, top leaders have been falling on thier own swords for centuries to protect their bosses and their causes.

All this is academic anyhow - Rummy will stay in place. Bush is too entrenched in his own rightious dogma to see how sacking his pal would have helped him.

[Inquartata]

Among other things, read the report. Given the report with the pictures to the President.

--Philistine

Do we know he didn't? Was the investigation complete?

[jeff]

According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Rumsfeld knew in January, and Bush was notified (according to "a senior WHite House staff person") early in February (I believe Feb 10) in a staff meeting. It does not look as if immediate action was taken.

The Economist editorial articulates the issues and the basis for their conclusion very well. They are usually much more aligned with the Bush administration than against.

[Inquartata]

The Economist EDITORIAL makes a compelling and logical argument, they do not say "because we don' like him" , or " because we say so"

Didn't say they did; that publication seldom talks out of its nethermost. OTOH, calling for R to step down because of the editorial IS citing "Because the Economist said so" as a reason. "Because we don't like him" seems to be another common "reason", but I didn't mean that's what the Economist said...

You minimize the actual imact of what occurred.

No, I don't think I do. I think that a lot of people are rather overstating it. It wasn't Auschwitz, after all. "Humiliation" is not an "atrocity". The only thing that makes it such an issue is that it was we who claim the mantle of a superior morality doing it...

Rumsfeld is not merely "involved" in the organization - he is the head of it, and along with that leadership goes not only the ultimate authority but the ultimate responsibility as well.

And here I thought Bush was the CinC...

You simply cannot get caught tourturing prisoners in the same prison that Sadam tourtured prisoners in. Its a huge "gaff" and requires a big gesture

Yes, but why? What does it accomplish? Apart from making the left lick its chops and Molly Ivins dance a jig, that is? Won't make any difference to the Iraqis, or the Arabs generally, or to any of thoe who already think we're "dangerous" to the world. Won't change the culture or the way the military or MI works. Won't do anything substantive that I can see.

And again, let us not forget: as far as we know thus far Rumsfeld did not himself have any part in the actual misconduct or in condoning it.

If someone in your Kingdom ( if you're SCA ) rapes someone does the King or his Seneschal have to resign in a paroxysm of symbolic shared guilt, because he's "the head" of the group? Whether he knew about it or not?

Politically, top leaders have been falling on thier own swords for centuries to protect their bosses and their causes.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem?

All this is academic anyhow - Rummy will stay in place. Bush is too entrenched in his own rightious dogma to see how sacking his pal would have helped him.

Guess I'm entrenched, too, then, because I don't see how it would help him, either...

[jeff]

I agree it pales next to the great atrocities, including what Saddam did in the same place. Still, it's atrocious, harmful to our cause, and (I am not a lawyer) contrary to Geneva Conventions. A Bad Thing.

[Philistine]

Do we know he didn't?

Yes. His spokesman said he hadn't read it on Monday May 3, 2004 (and hadn't even been briefed on it). NYT Story. On Tuesday, May 4, 2004, the best he could do is say that he had read the executive summary--not the whole report. DoD Transcript

By May 4, I had already read the full text of the Report (it was only about 50 pages long).

Was the investigation complete?

The report was complete in early March.

--Philistine

[Tireur]

Since we're citing opinions, here's one from Safire at the NY Times. Jeff, you told me a couple of weeks ago how well he summed things up:


Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. But any resignation would only whet their appetite to cut and run. The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on.

Because today's column will generate apoplectic e-mail, a word about contrarian opinion: Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."

One Bush cabinet member paid attention. Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals.

Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.

In last week's apology before the Senate, Rumsfeld assumed ultimate responsibility, as J.F.K. did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Pentagon chief failed to foresee and warn the president of the danger lurking in the Army's public announcement in January of its criminal investigation into prisoner abuse. He failed to put the nation's reputation ahead of the regulation prohibiting "command influence" in criminal investigations, which protects the accused in courts-martial.

The secretary testified that he was, incredibly, the last to see the humiliating photos that turned a damning army critique by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba into a media firestorm. Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff.

But then Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota rudely badgered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, repeatedly hurling the word "suppression" at him. General Myers had been trying to save the lives of troops by persuading CBS to delay its broadcast of pictures that would inflame resistance. Rumsfeld quieted the sound-bite-hungry politician by reminding him that requests to delay life-threatening reports were part of long military-media tradition.

This was scandal with no cover-up; the wheels of investigation and prosecution were grinding, with public exposure certain. Second only to the failure to prevent torture was the Pentagon's failure to be first to break the bad news: the Taguba report should have been released at a Rumsfeld press conference months ago.

Now every suspect ever held in any U.S. facility will claim to have been tortured and demand recompense. Videos real and fake will stream across the world's screens, and propagandists abroad will join defeatists here in calling American prisons a "gulag," gleefully equating Bush not just with Saddam but with Stalin.

Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to "name, rank, serial number," as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?

The United States shows the world its values by investigating and prosecuting wrongdoers high and low. It is not in our political value system to scapegoat a good man for the depraved acts of others. Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war.

This secretary of defense, who has the strong support of the president, is both effective and symbolic. If he were to quit under political fire, pressure would mount for America to quit under insurgent fire. Hang in there, Rummy! You have a duty to serve in our "long, hard slog."

[Inquartata]

I agree it pales next to the great atrocities, including what Saddam did in the same place. Still, it's atrocious, harmful to our cause, and (I am not a lawyer) contrary to Geneva Conventions. A Bad Thing.

Agreed on all points. I'm just not sure what real value there is in punishing the uninvolved because they are high-profile and will make for better press...

[Soldier]

Speaking of JFK and the Bay of Pigs:

"Success has a thousand fathers; failure, only one."