We just lost the war in Iraq w/ a picture

Nothing makes sense anymore.

Rimrocker, I think you must get back to who owns these companies. Over and over again we see the pattern. Privatization, that the cons believe in. The privatized services turn into profit centers for campaign contributors who are often recent government officials. I uspect the same can be said for the subcontractor- torturerers.

**********
Krugman on this.

Battlefield of Dreams
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 4, 2004



Last November the top economist at the Heritage Foundation was very optimistic about Iraq, saying Paul Bremer had just replaced "Saddam's soak-the-rich tax system" with a flat tax. "Few Americans would want to trade places with the people of Iraq," wrote the economist, Daniel Mitchell. "But come tax time next April, they may begin to wonder who's better off." Even when he wrote that, the insurgency in Iraq was visibly boiling over; by "tax time" last month, the situation was truly desperate.

Much has been written about the damage done by foreign policy ideologues who ignored the realities of Iraq, imagining that they could use the country to prove the truth of their military and political doctrines. Less has been said about how dreams of making Iraq a showpiece for free trade, supply-side tax policy and privatization — dreams that were equally oblivious to the country's realities — undermined the chances for a successful transition to democracy.

A number of people, including Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator of Iraq, think that the Bush administration shunned early elections, which might have given legitimacy to a transitional government, so it could impose economic policies that no elected Iraqi government would have approved. Indeed, over the past year the Coalition Provisional Authority has slashed tariffs, flattened taxes and thrown Iraqi industry wide open to foreign investors — reinforcing the sense of many Iraqis that we came as occupiers, not liberators.

But it's the reliance on private contractors to carry out tasks usually performed by government workers that has really come back to haunt us.

Conservatives make a fetish out of privatization of government functions; after the 2002 elections, George Bush announced plans to privatize up to 850,000 federal jobs. At home, wary of a public backlash, he has moved slowly on that goal. But in Iraq, where there is little public or Congressional oversight, the administration has privatized everything in sight.

For example, the Pentagon has a well-established procurement office for gasoline. In Iraq, however, that job was subcontracted to Halliburton. The U.S. government has many experts in economic development and reform. But in Iraq, economic planning has been subcontracted — after a highly questionable bidding procedure — to BearingPoint, a consulting firm with close ties to Jeb Bush.

What's truly shocking in Iraq, however, is the privatization of purely military functions.

For more than a decade, many noncritical jobs formerly done by soldiers have been handed to private contractors. When four Blackwater employees were killed and mutilated in Falluja, however, marking the start of a wider insurgency, it became clear that in Iraq the U.S. has extended privatization to core military functions. It's one thing to have civilians drive trucks and serve food; it's quite different to employ them as personal bodyguards to U.S. officials, as guards for U.S. government installations and — the latest revelation — as interrogators in Iraqi prisons.

According to reports in a number of newspapers, employees from two private contractors, CACI International and Titan, act as interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to Sewell Chan of The Washington Post, these contractors are "at the center of the probe" into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. And that abuse, according to the senior defense analyst at Jane's, has "almost certainly destroyed much of what support the coalition had among the more moderate section of the Iraqi population."

We don't yet know for sure that private contractors were at fault. But why put civilians, who cannot be court-martialed and hence aren't fully accountable, in that role? And why privatize key military functions?

I don't think it's simply a practical matter. Although there are several thousand armed civilians working for the occupation, their numbers aren't large enough to make a significant dent in the troop shortage. I suspect that the purpose is to set a precedent.

You may ask whether our leaders' drive to privatize reflects a sincere conservative ideology, or a desire to enrich their friends. Probably both. But before Iraq, privatization that rewarded campaign contributors was a politically smart move, even if it was a net loss for the taxpayers.

In Iraq, however, reality does matter. And thanks to the ideologues who dictated our policy over the past year, reality looks pretty grim.






link

 

Yeah we are doing this because we really think "brown people" can't govern themselves, not because of a tyrannical dictator .... Get a life

 

One of the contractors committed murder, and as far as I can tell, falls under the jurisidiction of no law enforcement agency, since it happened in Iraq.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4901264/

.
.
.
The soldier was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time, the official said. The official said that the soldier shot the prisoner after the prisoner had thrown rocks at the soldier and that the soldier was found to have used excessive force.

The official said that because the CIA contractor was not in the U.S. military, no legal action was taken because of lack of jurisdiction, but Army officials referred the case to the Justice Department for possible action. The official did not offer details of that killing.
.
.
.

 

Iraq is different because they agreed to stipulations at the end of the first war that they did not comply with. Thus action had to be taken.

Saying they went to war because we don't believe "brown people" can govern themselves is just stupid. Why wouldn't we attack India and every other country with "brown people" as well if that were the case?

 

Wrong. Among the worst war arguments, although it is somewhat nostalgic to come back to this one following the collapse of so many others.


1) They were only required to comply with the UNSC, not the United States. The UNSC was specifically designated the body which would

A) Decide when and if there was a lack of compliance.
B) The severity of the non-compliance.
C) The repercussions of same.


The UNSC did rule on the invasion as an extension of the treaty: they ruled against it.

The US had no more right, according to the treaty you cite, to go to war on it's own in support o it than I would have a right to break into my neighbour's house and shoot him when the police wouldn't because I felt he was using drugs.

We broke the treaty ourselves, according to international law, when we invaded in defiance of the UNSC in the same way that I would be breaking the law saying it was in support of the law with my neighbour.


Additionally, as it now appears, he was complying a lot more than almost anyone thought. Notice "thought", not "knew" This is an important distinction when discussing justification for a WAR.

 

The UN all agreed that Iraq did not comply with the treaty, but chose to do nothing about it.

We had an obligation to stand up for what we fought for in the first Gulf War, and it's not our fault the UNSC chose not to fulfill its obligations. As far as I am concerned the UNSC is worthless and is no more.

Still ... No matter what you believe about why we went to war, there is no justification for saying that we went to war because we don't think "brown people" can govern themselves. NONE WHATSOEVER!

 

Sorry I responded before I saw this post ... I really should read everything before I post ... My bad!

 

Actually the UN did not choose to do nothing about it. The UN enacted the no-fly zones, sent weapons inspectors back in, enacted sanctions, and were continuing to further enforce the agreements when Bush opted for war anyway.

Some people believe that not going to war meant doing nothing. That is not the case, plenty was being done, that didn't include going to war.

 

Wrong. They chose to act as they thought best...AS PER THE TREATY WE SIGNED. If we feel the right to defy the treaty when and where we see fit, based on the fact that we think we're right, how do we deny anyone else this right? And if we don't, how do we use defying the treaty as a reason for war?

Yes. It is. Because the UNSC not following their obligation is OPINION, NOT FACT. As such, we are directly responsible for whatever actions we base on that opinion, just like a person who takes the law into their own hands and in so doing breaks the same law is, whatever his motivations.

WHile that is certainly a popular opinion in the US since it stopped doing what we tell it, you should note that it's been somewhat less of a fad to declare it publicly like this since

A) They have been proven correct and the US incorrect on virtually every aspect of this debacle.

B) We now need them to clean up our mess.

 

The guy went sent to cleanup Abu Gharib has a few skeletons in his closet. He was also made recommendations for Abu Gharib in the *fall*.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...e,0,7012820.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

U.S. Disciplines 2 Guantanamo Bay Guards

By PAISLEY DODDS
Associated Press Writer

May 5, 2004, 6:46 PM EDT


SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Promising a broader investigation, the U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that two guards at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had been disciplined over allegations of prisoner abuse.

Air Force Capt. Laurie Arellano, a spokeswoman at Southern Command in Miami, also said a third U.S. guard faced abuse allegations but was cleared of wrongdoing.

The two guards were given administrative punishments, which often range from letters of reprimand to base restrictions, Arellano told The Associated Press.

She said it was not clear what type of abuse allegedly occurred or whether any of the three guards were still at Guantanamo, where some 600 detainees are being held on alleged links to Afghanistan's Taliban regime or al-Qaida network.

.
.
.
.

 

The good news is this guy has an appreciation for a writ of habeas corpus and is strongly against police abusing their powers.

I don't understand what the deal is with wanting to see another male masturbate. That is just disturbing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5673-2004May5.html

Ex-Detainee Tells of Anguishing Treatment at Iraq Prison

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 6, 2004; Page A18


BAGHDAD, May 5 -- Hasham Mohsen Lazim traded used tires for a living in the Shiite slum of Sadr City. He had been in trouble only once in his life, he said, a desperate time six years ago when he deserted Saddam Hussein's army to support his wife and four small children.



Then on one warm night in August, a taxi ride home ended in a U.S. Army holding cell, the first stop in what he described as a hellish four-month journey through the U.S. military prison system in Iraq. His experience veered between anguish and confusion, abuse and fury, before culminating in a series of pictures, broadcast worldwide in recent days, that memorialized his 24-day stay in the grimmest precincts of Abu Ghraib prison.

"Something awful happened to me," Lazim said during a two-hour interview broken by long pauses of silent despair. "I will never forget it until the day I die."

Lazim, 34, was prisoner No. 15227, according to his release papers. He said he was one of the hooded men in the photographs taken inside an Abu Ghraib cellblock that have generated worldwide revulsion. Although his identity could not be confirmed from the photographs, his account was supported by a friend from the prison, Hayder Sabbar Abd, who said he experienced the same treatment and could identify both himself and American guards from the photos. Lazim's papers show that he was in Abu Ghraib when the abuses occurred late last year.
.
.
.

 

Some guys have way too much time on their hands - abusing a 70+ year old woman. On the bright side, they apparently didn't resort to light stick or broom handle.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...e_eu/britain_iraq_us_prisoner_abuse&printer=1

U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi

Wed May 5, 4:39 PM ET

By SUE LEEMAN, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s personal human rights envoy to Iraq (news - web sites) said Wednesday.
The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she "didn't want to harp on the case because as far as I'm concerned it's been resolved."

Clwyd, 67, is a veteran politician of the governing Labour Party and a strong Blair supporter who regularly visits Iraq and reports back on issues such as human rights, the delivery of food and medical supplies to Iraqis, and Iraq's Kurdish minority. Her job as Blair's human rights envoy is unpaid and advisory.

.
.
.

 

Thomas Friedman with a blistering column from the Chronicle...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Editorial

May 5, 2004, 10:31PM


Bush should start by firing Rumsfeld

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom Friends right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving.

This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all.

That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — today, not tomorrow or next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for interrogation, a policy that ran amok.

Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Bush must hold his own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have been fired by shareholders months ago.

I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam — without the Arab League or Al-Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better — not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas.

We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas — ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. What we could do — and this was the only legitimate rationale for this war — was try to help Iraqis create a progressive context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war of ideas could be fought out.

But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are going to successfully partner with Iraqis.

Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the United Nations, and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the United Nations in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections — and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in.

Let's not lose sight of something — as bad as things look in Iraq, it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of interests, however clouded, can still salvage something decent from this war — if the Bush team can finally screw up the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change course.

Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must insist on it, because America's role in the world is too precious — to America and to the rest of the world — to be squandered like this.


Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner.

 

Wouldn't it be fair if we could read as much detail about some kid from Pennsylvania who got his guts ripped out by a RPG.

These people are dealing with The Enemy, The Enemy who killed their buddy, The Enemy who is trying to kill them. That doesn't excuse it (the military is all about discipline) but it does explain it.

Tell me a war where this kind of thing has not gone on?

 

giddyup: If you accept the premise that, when things are tough, when we're at war, we're basically no different than the ones we're fighting, why shouldn't they think the same? The country we invaded, on the idea that we were liberating them from torture and tyranny, started out suspicious of our motives. The actions of these soldiers and contractors -- systemic or isolated incidents -- have confirmed their worst fears about us. In an unprecedented show of contrition for this administration, most of the top people in the White House -- including Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell -- have agreed that this is a seriously bad deal and that it seriously harms our case for democracy being a better solution for Iraq in the eyes of the people we're trying to convince. No number of bombs will deter terrorism if the people on the fence are convinced we're no better than the ones we oppose.

You're behind the curve on the spin. Even Bush, the guy who can't think of one mistake he's made in office, came damn near close to apologizing for this yesterday on Arab television. The thread title's not especially dramatic considering the situation. The war for hearts and minds -- the REAL war on terrorism -- is in serious danger of being lost on account of American soldiers and contractors acting in the same cruel, mean, vicious ways the person we liberated them from did. This is a bad, bad, bad deal. Catch up.

 

Another car bombing today: 1 US soldier killed and 6 Iraqi citizens. Tell me again how the <b>US</b> is disinterested in the well-being of the Iraqis. Tell me again about the <b>US</b> disregard for collateral damage...

But we are different, Batman. This is kind of succinct but on track: their soldiers want to die and don't care whom they kill. Our soldiers want to live and care immensely more that they don't kill bystanders. As others have said, though, practically some tragedy is unavoidable just due to the nature of fighting.

I'm behind the curve on the spin because I'm not trying to spin it. Simple enough.

The humiliation of these Iraqis is saddening but it should not come as a surprise either. This kind of thing has always and almost always will happen in situations like this.

 

If you accept that, if people accept that, it'll never change. As much and as often as I disagree with Bush et al, I'm glad to report that on this issue, publicly at least, they agree with me and disagree with you. It is not acceptable and it is not unavoidable. And if it is we are already lost.

I do not accept that all people act this way during wars and it can't be avoided. I don't accept that our people, even under the worst circumstances, cannot avoid acting in those same ways that we call "evil" when our enemies do the same.

I also don't accept that all politicians are cynics and liars. I don't accept that that behavior is unavoidable in politicians. If I did, I'd already have given up. I'd be the cynic. And I'd be the liar when I said I put any stock at all in the character of our leaders and our country. I do. And I find it unacceptable when our leaders are dishonest with the American people and unacceptable when people call that kind of behavior par for the course.

If you accept it, it will keep happening. If our leaders lie, if our soldiers torture and worse, well, we might be better than the leaders and soldiers we fight, but only by degrees. That's not good enough for me. I hope and trust that when you dig deep it isn't for you either.

 

I don't know if this has been posted yet. If it has, it deserves to be posted twice. I don't always agree with Will, but I am a huge fan of his columns. This one's all quotes, but it's as effective as anything he's written.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100014/

Rape Rooms: A Chronology
What Bush said as the Iraq prison scandal unfolded.
By William Saletan
Updated Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 7:54 PM PT

"The Iraqi people are now free. And they do not have to worry about the secret police coming after them in the middle of the night, and they don't have to worry about their husbands and brothers being taken off and shot, or their wives being taken to rape rooms. Those days are over."—Paul Bremer, Administrator, [Iraq] Coalition Provisional Authority, Sept. 2, 2003

"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."—President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003

"There was an announcement by the Iraqi Governing Council earlier this week about the tribunal that they have set up to hold accountable members of the former regime who were responsible for three decades of brutality and atrocities. … We know about the mass graves and the rape rooms and the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein's regime. … We welcome their decision to move forward on a tribunal to hold people accountable for those atrocities."—Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, White House press briefing, Dec. 10, 2003

"One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."—Bush, press availability in Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 12, 2004

"On 19 January 2004, Lieutenant General (LTG) Ricardo S. Sanchez, Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Seven (CJTF-7) requested that the Commander, US Central Command, appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) in the grade of Major General (MG) or above to investigate the conduct of operations within the 800th Military Police (MP) Brigade. LTG Sanchez requested an investigation of detention and internment operations by the Brigade from 1 November 2003 to present. LTG Sanchez cited recent reports of detainee abuse."—Report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, senior U.S. military official in Iraq, describing a formal inquiry launched on Jan. 19, 2004

"Sources have revealed new details from the Army's criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees, including the location of the suspected crimes and evidence that is being sought. U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners, a Pentagon official told CNN on Tuesday."—Barbara Starr, CNN, Jan. 21, 2004

"Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell, and Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture chambers and rape rooms …"—Bush, remarks on "Winston Churchill and the War on Terror," Feb. 4, 2004

"Seventeen U.S. soldiers have been suspended of duties pending the outcome of the investigation into alleged allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners, a U.S. officer said Monday."—Associated Press, Feb. 23, 2004

"etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force. … The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence. … I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; …

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee …

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. …

In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape; …

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

—Executive summary of Taguba report, finalized Feb. 29, 2004, briefed to superiors on March 3, 2004, and submitted in final form on March 9, 2004

"Every woman in Iraq is better off because the rape rooms and torture chambers of Saddam Hussein are forever closed."—Bush, remarks on "Efforts to Globally Promote Women's Human Rights," March 12, 2004

"There's still remnants of that regime that would like to take it back. … They could torture people and have rape rooms, and the world would turn their head from that and let it happen. But they can't do that anymore."—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, BBC interview, March 16, 2004

"There are no more rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq."—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CBS Early Show, March 19, 2004

"As you know, on 14 January 2004, a criminal investigation was initiated to examine allegations of detainee abuse at the Baghdad confinement facility at Abu Ghraib. Shortly thereafter, the commanding general of Combined Joint Task Force Seven requested a separate administrative investigation into systemic issues such as command policies and internal procedures related to detention operations. That administrative investigation is complete; however, the findings and recommendations have not been approved. As a result of the criminal investigation, six military personnel have been charged with criminal offenses to include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts with another."--Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Coalition Operations, Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, March 20, 2004

"Correspondent Brooke Hart: But in a 53-page secret report, Army Major General Antonio Taguba says an investigation found a disturbing pattern of sadistic, blatant, wanton criminal abuses. The report was completed in February, but the Pentagon said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld hadn't read it. Democratic lawmakers are frustrated. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.: This is an unacceptable response. That's not the level of concern the American people would expect of their military commanders for this type of conduct."—"Pentagon officials to answer tough questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding Iraqi prisoner abuse," CNBC, April 4, 2004

"SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. …. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. … I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open."—Testimony of Military Police Specialist Matthew Wisdom, hearing on charges of prisoner abuse, April 9, 2004; according to The New Yorker, "After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial."

"The investigation started after SPC Darby … got a CD from CPL Graner. … He came across pictures of naked detainees."—Testimony of Special Agent Scott Bobeck, Army Criminal Investigation Division, same hearing, April 9, 2004

"Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcast—given the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq."—CBS News statement on its broadcast of photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse, April 29, 2004, referring to a DOD appeal received on or near April 15, 2004

"Our military is … performing brilliantly. See, the transition from torture chambers and rape rooms and mass graves and fear of authority is a tough transition. And they're doing the good work of keeping this country stabilized as a political process unfolds."—Bush, remarks on "Tax Relief and the Economy," Iowa, April 15, 2004

"We're facing supporters of the outlaw cleric, remnants of Saddam's regime that are still bitter that they don't have the position to run the torture chambers and rape rooms. … They will fail because they do not speak for the vast majority of Iraqis who do not want to replace one tyrant with another. They will fail because the will of our coalition is strong. They will fail because America leads a coalition full of the finest military men and women in the world."—Bush, remarks on the USA Patriot Act, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004

"We acted, and there are no longer mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms in Iraq."—Bush, remarks at Victory 2004 Reception, Florida, April 23, 2004

"The pictures show Americans, men and women, in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners. There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up."—Dan Rather, 60 Minutes II, April 28, 2004

"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq."—Bush, remarks in the Rose Garden, April 30, 2004

"There are those who seek to derail the transition to democracy because they want to return to the days of mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms. But that's not going to happen."—McClellan, White House press briefing, April 30, 2004

"A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba … listed some of the wrongdoing: 'Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.' "—Seymour M. Hersh, "Torture at Abu Ghraib," The New Yorker, posted April 30, 2004

"Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq."—Bush, remarks at "Ask President Bush" event, Michigan, May 3, 2004

"I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. … 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."—Rumsfeld, Defense Department Operational Update Briefing, May 4, 2004

"It's very important for people, your listeners, to understand in our country that when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act—and we act in a way where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. And we act in a way where, you know, our Congress asks pointed questions to the leadership. … Iraq was a unique situation because Saddam Hussein had constantly defied the world and had threatened his neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction, had terrorist ties, had torture chambers …"—Bush, interview with Al Arabiya Television, May 5, 2004