The Shameless 17
Granted, it is a degree of partisan bickering (you did it! Well, you did it more), but JYB alerts us to 17 officials who were told of the prison abuse before 60 Minutes 2 broke the story.
I guess the calls for resignation from the left will be forthcoming? Nah.
Update: Oh, and Rummy even came out with it publicly in January. Here’s a press release from U.S. Central Command (scroll down).
Just a partisan witch hunt.
And where was the media in January? I guess without shocking photos, they have no story.
May 11th, 2004 at 4:49 pm
Oh, wow, man, they did a press release! I suppose that absolves them from all responsibility for what happened, then, eh?
Clearly this was not even on their radar until the press took off and ran with the pictures. And even now, nobody of any standing has even been reprimanded, much less punished in any meaningful way. Yeah, the Administration is really concerned about this, all right.
As far as I’m concerned, any attempt to characterize outrage over prisoner abuse and torture at American hands as “partisan” is disgusting. There’s no other way to put it.
May 11th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
Tom, my ass. I am not attempting to characterize outrage over prisoner abuse and torture at American hands as “partisan”, I am characterizing the bogus calls for rummy to resign as “partisan”.
And it is.
Where’s your outrage and call for the 17 to resign/be held accountable? After all, it’s not partisan, is it?
And it wasn’t on the radar until there were pictures. And, without those pictures, it never would have been.
May 11th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
Actually, as I think about it, you are right, in an odd way. There is definitely partisanship involved, but it’s not that “the left” is calling for accountability. It’s that “the right” isn’t. There’s the partisanship.
May 11th, 2004 at 5:01 pm
“And it is.”
Oh bullshit. Rummy created the concept of prisiners outside the constraints of military or international law, was hands on in designing the rules for handling prisioners, and was told about this months before he did anything The repsonsibility is his, if responsibility is to have any meaning whatsoever.
May 11th, 2004 at 5:01 pm
Uncle:
You’re equating apples and oranges. People who were made obliquely aware of “abuse” (the press release in monumentally vague) are to lose their jobs because they weren’t more active in investigating the story, but the people whose responsibility it is to command the troops and ensure there is order are to get a free pass? Come on! That’s rather like asking Dennis Hastert to resign because Clinton got a blowjob.
May 11th, 2004 at 5:03 pm
I wonder, in your mind, at what point it would be acceptable for Democrats to ask for a Republican’s resignation?
May 11th, 2004 at 5:05 pm
From the Army Times:
May 11th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
So much for cries for resignation only coming from “the left,” eh, Kevin?
May 11th, 2004 at 6:10 pm
As it stands now, i am reserving judgment on the issue of rummy’s involvement. It’s not enough to warrant forced resignation, imo. That said, we still don’t know all the facts (even the smoking girl who points at iraqi penises is saying she was ordered to be in those pics because it degrades iraqi men to be photoed with women).
Instead of focusing on rummy, someone needs to get down to who the hell is giving the orders. Someone either gave the orders or let this stuff slide. And it should be their ass. I doubt it’s rummy.
If you want to know when his resignation should be asked for, when it’s proven he was involved or covered up. Did he shirk his duties? To an extent. Is he responsible, the evidence thus far says no.
May 11th, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Does anyone really think a general called up Rummy and said “Hey Rummy, we are gonna stick a bullwhip up some Iraqis ass and take Maplethorpe esque pictures of the guy…is that ok with you?”
Rummy created the concept of (sic) prisiners outside the constraints of military or international law, was hands on in designing the rules for handling prisioners,…
You really think the head of the defense department sat down and did a play book on prisoners in Iraq?
Accountable for not telling Bush or giving him a heads up? Yes. Guilty for the idiots who are boots on the ground? nope.
May 12th, 2004 at 8:34 am
Actually, according to testimony yesterday Rumsfeld personally signed off on each “coersive” interrogation at Gitmo. So he knows the procedures and which parameters require his approval. There was testimony that these same procedures were used as “guidelines” for developing the Iraq interrogation procedures, but that Rumsfeld was not personally involved in approving any extraordinary methods, but rather Gen. Sanchez was given this authority.
May 12th, 2004 at 8:44 am
(So, yes, there is a playbook, and yes, military commanders call up the Pentagon and say “I want to stick a hot poker up this guy’s ass, OK?”)
May 12th, 2004 at 9:01 am
After the beheading yesterday I could not care less about the poor abused Iraqis. F them.
May 12th, 2004 at 9:20 am
skb, that’s pretty frightening but I tend to doubt Rummy realized/authorized sanchez’s troops to do what was going on there.
May 12th, 2004 at 4:19 pm
Uncle:
I tend to doubt Rummy realized/authorized sanchez’s troops to do what was going on there.
He may not have specifically authorized those exact measures, but he’s still accountable for what his reports did, especially if they asked for permission to use vaguely expressed “extreme methods” without asking for clarification.
May 12th, 2004 at 4:22 pm
tom if he’s investigating it, that is being accoutable.
May 12th, 2004 at 6:23 pm
I find it less than satisfying to know that Rumsfeld is “investigating” claims of abuse for which he may personally be partly, if indirectly, responsible. An independent investigation would be preferable.