By disengaging from the Geneva conventions and established military procedures for handling POWs, Rumsfeld created the conditions under which torture and abuse would be MUCH more likely. For this and his gross incompetence that has led to the current debacle in Iraq he should be fired.
By disengaging from the Geneva conventions and established military procedures for handling POWs, Rumsfeld created the conditions under which torture and abuse would be MUCH more likely. For this and his gross incompetence that has led to the current debacle in Iraq he should be fired. True, but Bush acquiesced to all Rumsfeld did. . The stage was set for atrocities in Iraq, by how they handled Afghanistan and 9/11. There would be no criminal trials. Arresting hundreds of Muslims in the US, not releasing their names, holding them without lawyers in unknown locations. US citizens denied access to lawyers, too. Deliberately trying to circumvent the Genevas Conventions by taking hundreds of prisoners to Guantanamo, again without any due process. This was widely condemned. But oh, no, it was just liberals who hate America. Well now conservatives have made their bed; lie in it. Maybe this fresh example of why we have the Magna Carta and procedural rights and so forth will sink in. Teach them some practical civics. I say don't let incurious George just pass this all off on Rumsfeld.
Well arguably TJ didn't advocate torture. His friends have come pretty close. Rush said essentially it was just some soldiers blowing off steam. Hannity said it was sort of on the order of fraternity hijinks during iniation. I'm not making this up!! link
_'s dismissing patriotic Americans' calling for high-level accountability for the disgusting torture of prisoners as 'liberal garbage' is putridly base. It also further underscores what a small minded twit he is.
Who cares if Bush isn't "happy" about Rumsfeld's actions? Rummy is still going to stay because we know the people and media won't do too much about it when it's 15 minutes of exposure is up. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5064716§ion=news This "news" about Bush's dissatisfaction is probably some well positioned leak designed for the appearance of accountability and approval ratings.
I read and then read again the first two paragraphs. Abuses will take place in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions helped create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured and murdered -- and in which, until recently, no one has been held accountable. The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. Prisoners, he said, would be treated "for the most part" in "a manner that is reasonably consistent" with the conventions -- which, the secretary breezily suggested, was outdated. Here, I'll even apologize for everybody in the thread. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you have your head so far up W's rear that you can't see when something in the administration is CLEARLY broken.
Uh, somewhere under "evildoers", but not as nice as "gooddoers", perhaps?? (geez) If I were a supporter of Bush, which, of course, I'm not, I would want Rumsfeld's resignation... asap. At this point, he is hurting Bush and his re-election. Now, that's OK by me, but I find it a bit amazing that someone that sees Bush as their guy wants Rummy to stay on. Very bad political move, imo.
"My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday. "I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word."
This is getting out of hand. Someone has to take the fall Red Rover Red Rover...Please send Rummy Over.
I don't know what's worse: his constant disdain for American and international audiences; or the fact that he can, with a straight face, say that having a broomhandle shoved into your rectum does not qualify as torture. Rush, Hannity, and Rumsfeld should all be forced to get together and "blow off some steam" in this way.
House Democrats Seek Rumsfeld's Ouster May 6, 12:36 PM (ET) By Vicki Allen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday accused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of a cover-up in the scandal over abused Iraqi prisoners and said he should resign. "I think that Mr. Rumsfeld should step down," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters. "Mr. Rumsfeld has been engaged in a cover-up from the start on this issue," she said. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, echoed her call. "For the good of our country, the safety of our troops and our image around the globe, Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. If he does not resign forthwith, the president should fire him," he said. Top Republicans in the House dismissed the resignation calls, and most lawmakers said it was too early to fix blame for the abuses. Rumsfeld was to testify on Friday before the Senate Armed Services Committee in an appearance at which some lawmakers said his job could be in the balance. Asked if Rumsfeld should resign, Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said: "I think it will be determined on his testimony. We ought to listen to him." "I think the overall issues, obviously, are the issues of accountability and responsibility and the extent of all of this," Kennedy said. "Is this the tip of the iceberg or the whole thing?" A Senate Republican aide said Rumsfeld must "give the performance of his life," and show contrition. "He needs to have full disclosure of the facts, no parsing of words or displaying the usual convoluted testimony that the Senate Armed Services Committee has been accustomed to," the Republican aide said. House Majority leader Tom Delay, a Texas Republican, and several other House Republicans defended Rumsfeld and accused the Democrats of trying to politicize the war. "Calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation is as bad a signal as saying the war in unwinnable," DeLay told reporters. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stopped just short of calling for Rumsfeld's dismissal on Wednesday. "If it goes all the way to Rumsfeld then he should resign," Biden told NBC's "Today" show. At a news conference Pelosi criticized the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq military campaign and discussed the international furor after photographs emerged last week showing sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in a jail outside Baghdad.
Josh references the above article and makes the point that the WH doesn't want confirmation hearings for a new SecDef. ________ There's a rush of new articles out this afternoon which, at first blush, make me think Don Rumsfeld is finished. An article in Reuters has a Republican senate staffer saying this about what Rumsfeld needs to do to keep his job ... A Senate Republican aide said Rumsfeld must "give the performance of his life," and show contrition. "He needs to have full disclosure of the facts, no parsing of words or displaying the usual convoluted testimony that the Senate Armed Services Committee has been accustomed to," the Republican aide said. As far as people losing their jobs goes, political storms have two phases: a dynamic phase and an equilibrium phase. The first comes right after the revelation when everything is influx and the person on the line is wholly embattled. Usually, and always if the person in question is to survive, you then reach a point of equilibrium where the person's defenders find some point, some firm ground, on which they feel they can defend him. If that second stage doesn't kick in quickly the person is almost always finished. In virtually every case, what does someone in is not an abundance of critics but a lack of defenders. One thing that makes Rumsfeld more vulnerable is that he's already lost what was once a key pillar of support: hawks and neocons. Just recently, Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan wrote a piece in the Weekly Standard that all but called on Bush to fire Rumsfeld. For all these reasons it's difficult for me to see where Rumsfeld's equilibrium comes from. Yet there's an added political question. Let's say Rumsfeld resigns on Friday. The election is still six months away. And the nation is at war. So a new Defense Secretary would be needed more or less immediately. That would open up a very uncomfortable prospect for the administration. Confirmation hearings for a new Sec Def would, I think, inevitably turn into a national forum for discussing the management of the Pentagon, the planning for the war and the lack of planning for the occupation. The new nominee would be drawn into all sorts of uncomfortble public second-guessing of what's happened up until this point. Sure, that's stuff under Rumsfeld. But, really, it's stuff under Bush -- the civilian head of the United States military. That, I have to imagine, is something the White House would like to avoid at any cost. -- Josh Marshall
Rumsfeld, Admonished by Bush, Faces Repercussions, McCain Says May 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who administration officials said was admonished by President George W. Bush for inadequate briefings on prisoner abuse in Iraq, will face ``repercussions,'' Republican Senator John McCain said. McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee that will question Rumsfeld tomorrow, stopped short of calling on Bush to fire Rumsfeld after abuses were revealed last week on CBS's ``60 Minutes II'' program, which aired photographs showing nude inmates piled up beside smiling soldiers. ``I don't presume to tell the president what he should do,'' McCain said on the ``Early Show'' this morning on CBS. ``But it's obvious that there's a lot of explaining that Secretary Rumsfeld and others have to do.'' President George W. Bush told Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting yesterday that he isn't satisfied with the quality of information or the number of briefings he received on the abuse investigation, an administration official said. Bush has no intention of firing Rumsfeld or requesting his resignation, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized Rumsfeld for not informing them about the investigation into the abuses when it began in January.
I'm not a fan of Rumsfeld. He micromanages, he fired a good secretary and forced a patriot into retirement because they disagreed with him, and he looks down on soldiers. I could care less that he is the only man to serve as SecDef twice, nonconsecutively and the youngest man to be SecDef as well as the oldest. I dislike him.
Rummy's post war plan was a beaut too!!! Remember the occupation & concurrent reconstruction was not going to cost us a thing. And our troop levels would be down to 30,000 by the end of 2003 summer. If an executive VP in a Fortune 500 company laid such a turd in planning, he would be summarily fired and publicly made the scape goat. In America Inc., GWB never got that memo. The truth is that GWB is running America Inc. like Enron, rewarding extreme incompetence/deceit with fierce loyalty. 4 more years!!! I can hardly wait. More tax cuts for the rich. More job losses for middle America. More record setting deficits that the next generation can not afford. Maybe even a new war or two. More moral clarity.
