Tell the truth or go along either way he was bound to lose

[DeadCanDance]

What's to be surprised about?

One, Rumsfeld viewing pictures the night before testifying that he did not know the extent of the abuse are not contradictory. That he viewed pictures is indicative of only the fact that he viewed pictures.

If I was Commanding General and had something like this happen on MY watch, you're damned right I'd have the investigation corroborated. Tagabu's comment on THAT appears to be nothing but over-sensitivity to me.

From the article...Rummy didn't see the photos till the night before, but he had been informed of the graphic nature of the pictures months before:

Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint. On January 13, 2004, a military policeman named Joseph Darby gave the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) a CD full of images of abuse. Two days later, General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, the director of the Joint Staff of the J.C.S., were e-mailed a summary of the abuses depicted on the CD. It said that approximately ten soldiers were shown, involved in acts that included:


"Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains.

Taguba said, “You didn’t need to ‘see’ anything—just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value.”

 

[Gunny]

From the article...Rummy didn't see the photos till the night before, but he had been informed of the graphic nature of the pictures months before:

Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint. On January 13, 2004, a military policeman named Joseph Darby gave the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) a CD full of images of abuse. Two days later, General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, the director of the Joint Staff of the J.C.S., were e-mailed a summary of the abuses depicted on the CD. It said that approximately ten soldiers were shown, involved in acts that included:


"Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains.

Taguba said, “You didn’t need to ‘see’ anything—just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value.”

As I pointed out on the first page ... do you think the SecDef should be personally involved in all cases involving crimes committed by military personnel? The crime was being routinely processed like any other crime UNTIL the left and the MSM sensationalized the Hell out of it. That is THE only difference between Abu Ghraib and any other crime committed by military personnel.

Somebody hands you a piece of paper, and some pics, and you check it out. Are you willing to go in the very next day and swear under oath that's the "extent of the crimes?"

Right. Had Rumsfeld done so, and it later turned out that there was more to it, there'd be at least a thousand threads on this board claiming Rumsfeld lied under oath, and Congressional dem;s wouold be appointing a special investigator to prove it.

 

[DeadCanDance]

As I pointed out on the first page ... do you think the SecDef should be personally involved in all cases involving crimes committed by military personnel? The crime was being routinely processed like any other crime UNTIL the left and the MSM sensationalized the Hell out of it. That is THE only difference between Abu Ghraib and any other crime committed by military personnel.

Somebody hands you a piece of paper, and some pics, and you check it out. Are you willing to go in the very next day and swear under oath that's the "extent of the crimes?"

Right. Had Rumsfeld done so, and it later turned out that there was more to it, there'd be at least a thousand threads on this board claiming Rumsfeld lied under oath, and Congressional dem;s wouold be appointing a special investigator to prove it.

I'm not saying rummy is guilty of anything at this point.

Taguba and the evidence indicate rummy was made aware of the graphic nature of the photos, and their strategic significance, months before the hearing where, under sworn testimony, rummy said he's never heard of the extent of the abuses.

Taguba's and Rummy's accounts seem contradictory.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not saying rummy is guilty of anything at this point.

Taguba and the evidence indicate rummy was made aware of the graphic nature of the photos, and their strategic significance, months before the hearing where, under sworn testimony, rummy said he's never heard of the extent of the abuses.

Taguba's and Rummy's accounts seem contradictory.

But Rumsfeld testified before Congress the following day that he had no idea of the extent of the abuse,

Not exactly what you're saying. He said he had no ide of the extent of the abuses, not that he'd never heard of the extent of the abuses.

What strategic significance? Without the left-fueled MSM sensationalism, the incident was ALREADY being investigated and those guards were going ot go down anyway.

The "strategic significance" didn't occur until the MSM made SURE everyone in the world had heard the story and seen a few pics at least once a day for months, giving our enemies propaganda and recruiting points they would not have otherwise had.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Not exactly what you're saying. He said he had no ide of the extent of the abuses, not that he'd never heard of the extent of the abuses.

What strategic significance? Without the left-fueled MSM sensationalism, the incident was ALREADY being investigated and those guards were going ot go down anyway.

The "strategic significance" didn't occur until the MSM made SURE everyone in the world had heard the story and seen a few pics at least once a day for months, giving our enemies propaganda and recruiting points they would not have otherwise had.

What strategic significance?


You can be sure that Iraqis were hearing about what was going on inside the prison, from relatives and friends who had been detained and released, regardless of whether the american MSM, reported it.

That was the strategic significance: losing the hearts and minds of the iraqi people. We promised to be their liberators and protectors. We hold our nation and our military up as a bastion of moral authority.

So, this story was getting out their to iraqis, whether NBC reported it or not. Therefore, we had two choices:

1) Try to hide the story, and look like lying, devious hypocritical fools to the iraqis and the rest of the world.

2) Publically fess up to the abuse and torture, and promise to never do it again.



Option 2, is better for the strategic interests of the United States.

Option 1 was what the old Soviet Union would have done.

 

[Gunny]

What strategic significance?


You can be sure that Iraqis were hearing about what was going on inside the prison, from relatives and friends who had been detained and released, regardless of whether the american MSM, reported it.

That was the strategic significance: losing the hearts and minds of the iraqi people. We promised to be their liberators and protectors. We hold our nation and our military up as a bastion of moral authority.

So, this story was getting out their to iraqis, whether NBC reported it or not. Therefore, we had two choices:

1) Try to hide the story, and look like lying, devious hypocritical fools to the iraqis and the rest of the world.

2) Publically fess up to the abuse and torture, and promise to never do it again.



Option 2, is better for the strategic interests of the United States.

Option 1 was what the old Soviet Union would have done.

And again, were not each and every person identified as participating in criminal behavior prosecuted? Is not mistreating prisoners specifically a violation of US military and international law?

It had nowhere near the strategic significance nor importance the lefties and MSM gave it.

 

[DeadCanDance]

And again, were not each and every person identified as participating in criminal behavior prosecuted? Is not mistreating prisoners specifically a violation of US military and international law?

It's a testament to the moral authority of the U.S., that we hold people accountable for this stuff. There are suspicions and allegations of a cover up at higher levels, but at this point I freely admit they are not more than serious allegations.

The point in this thread, is that the General the Pentagon put in charge of the investigation says the SecDef provided misleading testimony, and that other's high up are lying about the affair. These are serious charges, from a credible person.

It had nowhere near the strategic significance nor importance the lefties and MSM gave it.

I'm afraid even President George Bush disagrees with you.

When asked about the biggest mistakes and errors of his Iraq War, Bush specifically pointed to Abu Ghraib as the biggest mistake of the Iraq War:



"UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush have made a stark public acknowledgement that they made mistakes in Iraq.

Mr Bush said the biggest US error was the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib, which it was now paying for. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5016548.stm

 

[Gunny]

It's a testament to the moral authority of the U.S., that we hold people accountable for this stuff. There are suspicions and allegations of a cover up at higher levels, but at this point I freely admit they are not more than serious allegations.

The point in this thread, is that the General the Pentagon put in charge of the investigation says the SecDef provided misleading testimony, and that other's high up are lying about the affair. These are serious charges, from a credible person.



I'm afraid even President George Bush disagrees with you.

When asked about the biggest mistakes and errors of his Iraq War, Bush specifically pointed to Abu Ghraib as the biggest mistake of the Iraq War:



"UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush have made a stark public acknowledgement that they made mistakes in Iraq.

Mr Bush said the biggest US error was the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib, which it was now paying for. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5016548.stm

Bush really had no choice but sing to the tune the MSM was playing.

The first biggest problem with your attempting to use Bush as your backup is that Abu Ghraib was HARDLY anywhere near the biggest mistake made in Iraq. Second is that Bush is saying the incident itself, not how the aftermath was handled is the "biggest mistake."

I don't quite see the General in the same light you do. You're giving him a wash, and willing to believe unsupported allegations because they're against Bush and/or his administration. The only person to mention possible selfish motives on the General's part is ME.

The General has given nothing but his personal opinion on what he thinks Rumsfeld knew. Presuming to state what another person knew as fact is hardly credible, IMO.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Gunny: It (Abu Ghraib) had nowhere near the strategic significance nor importance the lefties and MSM gave it.”

"Mr Bush said the biggest US error was the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib, which it was now paying for. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5016548.stm

Gunny: “Bush really had no choice but sing to the tune the MSM was playing.”


Please Gunny…are your really saying that stalwart, lifelong republicans like George Bush and Colin Powel are lying and just “playing along with the MSM”, about Abu Ghraib?

Both Bush and Powell acknowledge that is was the “biggest mistake” of the war”, and had a “terrible impact” on america internationally.

Are you really standing by your assertion? Seriously man, your theory is laughable.

Abuse scandal ‘terrible’ for U.S., Powell concedes

NEW YORK - Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal had had a “terrible impact” on America’s international image as the Bush administration fought back against reports that it encouraged the abuses by emphasizing a get-tough approach to interrogations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

 

[Gunny]

Gunny: It (Abu Ghraib) had nowhere near the strategic significance nor importance the lefties and MSM gave it.”





Gunny: “Bush really had no choice but sing to the tune the MSM was playing.”


Please Gunny…are your really saying that stalwart, lifelong republicans like George Bush and Colin Powel are lying and just “playing along with the MSM”, about Abu Ghraib?

Both Bush and Powell acknowledge that is was the “biggest mistake” of the war”, and had a “terrible impact” on america internationally.

Are you really standing by your assertion? Seriously man, your theory is laughable.

You think? Let me point out to you that I am a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant, not some ass-kissing, dirtbag politician, and I don't think like one.

What's laughable is claiming Abu Graib is the biggest mistake made in Iraq. It may have been the biggest POLITICAL mistake of the war the way the MSM spread the fertilizer around, but it doesn't even come close to being the biggest mistake, and just reinforces my opinion that politicians need to sit down, shut up and let the REAL professionals run the wars.

The biggest mistake of the Iraq War was invading Iraq to begin with. Simple as THAT. Now try to stay with me here ... that is in no way saying the justification to take out Saddam did not exist, and/or was wrong. IMO, from a strategic perspective Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The sectarian violence going on now was predicted as far back as 1991 as the probable result of removing Saddam from power.

The second biggest mistake was flawed ideology, thinking people raised in a completely foreign culture with at best only a rough concept of what democracy is were going to welcome us with open arms.

The third biggest mistake, was once the decision was made to invade, it should have included keeping the religious sects isolated where they were in the no-fly zones until the new Iraq government could deal with them itself.

Fourth would be just letting the Iraqi army go with their weapons.

I'd probably follow that one up with the Marines who recently executed some noncombatants, for which they are being prosecuted, but with none of the fanfare Abu Ghraib generated.

You can pile that isolated crime for which the perpetrators were punished for humiliating prisoners somewhere under those REAL, strategic and tactical errors and a crime that actually murdered people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You think? Let me point out to you that I am a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant, not some ass-kissing, dirtbag politician, and I don't think like one.

What's laughable is claiming Abu Graib is the biggest mistake made in Iraq. It may have been the biggest POLITICAL mistake of the war the way the MSM spread the fertilizer around, but it doesn't even come close to being the biggest mistake, and just reinforces my opinion that politicians need to sit down, shut up and let the REAL professionals run the wars.

The biggest mistake of the Iraq War was invading Iraq to begin with. Simple as THAT. Now try to stay with me here ... that is in no way saying the justification to take out Saddam did not exist, and/or was wrong. IMO, from a strategic perspective Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The sectarian violence going on now was predicted as far back as 1991 as the probable result of removing Saddam from power.

The second biggest mistake was flawed ideology, thinking people raised in a completely foreign culture with at best only a rough concept of what democracy is were going to welcome us with open arms.

The third biggest mistake, was once the decision was made to invade, it should have included keeping the religious sects isolated where they were in the no-fly zones until the new Iraq government could deal with them itself.

Fourth would be just letting the Iraqi army go with their weapons.

I'd probably follow that one up with the Marines who recently executed some noncombatants, for which they are being prosecuted, but with none of the fanfare Abu Ghraib generated.

You can pile that isolated crime for which the perpetrators were punished for humiliating prisoners somewhere under those REAL, strategic and tactical errors and a crime that actually murdered people.

If you mean the Haditha affair, there was no murder. It was a fire fight in houses and some civilians died in the exchange. That is coming out in the trial. Now there were a couple marines that Raped a girl and murdered her and her family and I seem to recall some marines and a corpsman also being charged but not yet tried on some murder charge in regards some civilians.

 

[Gunny]

If you mean the Haditha affair, there was no murder. It was a fire fight in houses and some civilians died in the exchange. That is coming out in the trial. Now there were a couple marines that Raped a girl and murdered her and her family and I seem to recall some marines and a corpsman also being charged but not yet tried on some murder charge in regards some civilians.

It is to that incident I'm referred. I'll have to look it up. I don't recall offhand what they are labelling it.

 

[DeadCanDance]

You think? Let me point out to you that I am a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant, not some ass-kissing, dirtbag politician, and I don't think like one.

What's laughable is claiming Abu Graib is the biggest mistake made in Iraq. It may have been the biggest POLITICAL mistake of the war the way the MSM spread the fertilizer around, but it doesn't even come close to being the biggest mistake, and just reinforces my opinion that politicians need to sit down, shut up and let the REAL professionals run the wars.

The biggest mistake of the Iraq War was invading Iraq to begin with. Simple as THAT. Now try to stay with me here ... that is in no way saying the justification to take out Saddam did not exist, and/or was wrong. IMO, from a strategic perspective Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The sectarian violence going on now was predicted as far back as 1991 as the probable result of removing Saddam from power.

The second biggest mistake was flawed ideology, thinking people raised in a completely foreign culture with at best only a rough concept of what democracy is were going to welcome us with open arms.

The third biggest mistake, was once the decision was made to invade, it should have included keeping the religious sects isolated where they were in the no-fly zones until the new Iraq government could deal with them itself.

Fourth would be just letting the Iraqi army go with their weapons.

I'd probably follow that one up with the Marines who recently executed some noncombatants, for which they are being prosecuted, but with none of the fanfare Abu Ghraib generated.

You can pile that isolated crime for which the perpetrators were punished for humiliating prisoners somewhere under those REAL, strategic and tactical errors and a crime that actually murdered people.

Of course the biggest mistake was the decision to invade iraq in the first place. It was a flawed premise, based on dubious evidence. That goes without saying.


I'm talking about the actual mistakes incurred during the war. A credible case can be made that abu ghraib wasn't the biggest disaster of the war. But, neither can it be dismissed as some insignificant incident. It was basically the moment in time that I think we lost the hearts and minds of a lot of those iraqis who initially may have been pre-disposed to support us, or help us.

 

[Gunny]

Of course the biggest mistake was the decision to invade iraq in the first place. It was a flawed premise, based on dubious evidence. That goes without saying.


I'm talking about the actual mistakes incurred during the war. A credible case can be made that abu ghraib wasn't the biggest disaster of the war. But, neither can it be dismissed as some insignificant incident. It was basically the moment in time that I think we lost the hearts and minds of a lot of those iraqis who initially may have been pre-disposed to support us, or help us.

Big-picture-wise, and without the MSM going berserk sensationalizing it, it indeed is a rather insignificant event. We never had the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. While I am sure there are exceptions, I'd say most of the Iraqis "helping" us are doing so with ulterior motives in mind.

The evidence wasn't dubious, nor the premise flawed. However, Bush either ignored, or his general's forgot that when we didn't take Saddam out in 91 ... you know ... when all the lefties sang for 12 years in chorus "Bush didn't finish the job"?.... the main reason was we didn't because Bush had to agree not to in order to gain unrestricted use of Arab airspace, and an air force base in Saudi Arabia. A secondary reason was that "there was no Abraham Lincoln waiting in the wings to take his place," and that his removal would likely create a power vaccum within the various, vying factions in the Middle East.

The only way we could possibly have circumvented that would have been as I said previously to keep the islamic factions isolated. Seal off the borders, and NOT turn the Iraqi Army loose en masse. Those were political decisions aimed at winning the hearts and minds, not the war.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I've never heard one Liberal in the entire 1990's sing that Poppy Bush didn't finish the job.

If you recall, most liberals were against shedding american blood to go to war on behalf of the Kuwaiti Royal Family.

 

[Gunny]

I've never heard one Liberal in the entire 1990's sing that Poppy Bush didn't finish the job.

If you recall, most liberals were against shedding american blood to go to war on behalf of the Kuwaiti Royal Family.

Where were you living? Canada?

That "Bush didn't finish the job" was favored left-wing rhetoric from 1991 until we invaded Iraq. Now y'all pretend you never said it.

I don't know what "most liberals thought at the time. I was on a ship in the Gulf from June 90 to Feb 91, and didn't come home until April.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Where were you living? Canada?

That "Bush didn't finish the job" was favored left-wing rhetoric from 1991 until we invaded Iraq. Now y'all pretend you never said it.

I don't know what "most liberals thought at the time. I was on a ship in the Gulf from June 90 to Feb 91, and didn't come home until April.

That "Bush didn't finish the job" was favored left-wing rhetoric from 1991 until we invaded Iraq. Now y'all pretend you never said it.

No, I never heard it said. Neither did you. You just spent the last four years hearing Rush Limbaugh claim that, and have convinced yourself that it actually happened.

Most liberals were against both the 1991 war and the 2003 war on Iraq. It doesn't make a lick of sense that liberals wanted to continue the 1991 war, and march on Baghdad.

 

[Gunny]

That "Bush didn't finish the job" was favored left-wing rhetoric from 1991 until we invaded Iraq. Now y'all pretend you never said it.

No, I never heard it said. Neither did you. You just spent the last four years hearing Rush Limbaugh claim that, and have convinced yourself that it actually happened.

Most liberals were against both the 1991 war and the 2003 war on Iraq. It doesn't make a lick of sense that liberals wanted to continue the 1991 war, and march on Baghdad.

Excuse me? You presume a lot for one who knows so little. One, I don't listen to Rush, and I've NEVER heard him say it. I heard it said a lot during the 90s. Every time Saddam rattled his sabre it was the favorite response.

Liberals don't make a lot of sense period. But it DOES make sense that they'd say it even if it contradicts their original stance when used as a finger-pointing tool.

 

[Care4all]

Army Major General Antonio Taguba said he met with then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials and described to them some of the contents of a report he had prepared on the notorious prison.

But Rumsfeld testified before Congress the following day that he had no idea of the extent of the abuse, Taguba told the New Yorker magazine in an interview.

"He's trying to acquit himself and a lot of people who are lying to protect themselves," the magazine quoted him as saying, referring to Rumsfeld's May 7, 2004 testimony.

A few weeks after his report became public, Taguba, who was still in Kuwait, was in the back seat of a Mercedes sedan with Abizaid. … Abizaid turned to Taguba and issued a quiet warning: “You and your report will be investigated.”

“I wasn’t angry about what he said but disappointed that he would say that to me,” Taguba said. “I’d been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia.“


Wow...

No Kidding! It deserves a Wow, and DESERVES further looking in to in my humble opinion, and should not be discarded just because Hearsh wrote it!

Care

 

[Care4all]

Where were you living? Canada?

That "Bush didn't finish the job" was favored left-wing rhetoric from 1991 until we invaded Iraq. Now y'all pretend you never said it.

I don't know what "most liberals thought at the time. I was on a ship in the Gulf from June 90 to Feb 91, and didn't come home until April.

The NEOCONS IN THE 90'S were always complaining that Bush did not complete the job.

NOT THE LIBERALS, NEVER THE LIBERALS.

gees louise!

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Pearle, Card,etc., THE NEOCONSERVATIVES, BITCHED through the 90's about not completing the job, The Project for the New American Century group of people, you know, ALL THE ONES that President Bush hired.... all the ones that TRIED to get Clinton to go to war with Iraq again in the late 90's, but thank God Clinton was "on" to them and their thirst for war and power, and ignored their request that he got in writing of their thoughts on what our government should do in the middle east.

I have no idea where you have even gotten your misguided CLAIM that liberals were saying in the 90's that Bush should have finished the "job" in Gulf War 1?

Maybe after 911, I heard this comment made, and not even then can I say it was a "Democrat" saying it, I believe it was the neocons regurgitating their own stance?

Care