Article

2004-05-07 Home Front: Politix

Bush Apologizes for Abuse, Backs Rumsfeld

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-05-07 12:06:06 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This must be the most controversy of a cabinet member since Andrew Johnson's presidency. It is ludicrous to cash the civilian leader of the DOD for the conduct to low level clowns unless their actions are a symptom of problems all the way up the chain-of-command. Rumsfeld should be proud; that the hacks should come after him for this incident shows just how much they fear his effectiveness.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-05-07 3:32:19 AM|| 2004-05-07 3:32:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Wall Street Journal has it exactly right: if Bush abandons Rumsfeld, his base stops believing in him and the election is over.

Excellent editorial, btw, and I agree with it 100% on where we are.

Posted by someone 2004-05-07 3:46:49 AM|| 2004-05-07 3:46:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I predict (again) that if the Dems and their Media enablers keep up this hue and cry (Rangel is preparing articles of impeachment? What a scumbag) that it will bite them in the ass - as long as W stays strong and consistent...no more idiot leaks that he dressed Rumsfeld down over the photos! Stand by your men W!

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-07 8:41:45 AM|| 2004-05-07 8:41:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Bush has been faulted for being too loyal to his people (like Mineta, O'Neill). Let's hope that he doesn't overcompensate by getting rid of Rumsfeld who is clearly one of the best in the Cabinet. Agree with #2 - dumping Rumsfeld would kill Bush in the election.

Posted by AWW 2004-05-07 9:18:52 AM|| 2004-05-07 9:18:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry also pushed for Rumsfeld's ouster. "It's the way it was handled," Kerry said. "The lack of information to the Congress, the lack of information to the country, not managing it, not dealing with it, recognizing it as an issue."

The 'way it was handled' means that Kerry was not allowed to look like an internationalist by dragging this issue and the participants further through the mud than is necessary.

'Lack of information to the congress' So now congress needs information of what amounts to a minor incident instead of letting the military take care of matters, which it has already. Can not congress et al see this was an issue of loss of control of troops, a serious matter to be sure especially when it occurs in a war zone, but not a matter of civilian policy?

'Lack of information to the country' You got gay porn out of it for your supporters, what more do you want: license it to Miramax? Tristar? Or is Kerry sad his allies in the POW ranks were humiliated?

'Not managing it' So now Kerry is a manager. Tell me, John, when was the last time you risked your money and your reputation running a business, met a payroll, negotiated a deal, dealt with suppliers... Cookies don't count.

'Not dealing with it' The military is gonna love you if by some freak of nature you win in 2004. The army is still going through its investigative process and all you can drone on about it no one is dealing with it.

'Not recognizing it as an issue' That is the 'money quote' Bush won't make it an issue because the army is taking care of the matter. (I.E. he is managing it) His opponents are making it an issue, and when Rumsfeld gets done testifying, there won't be an unchewed ass in the committee room; not Rumsfeld's, just about every political opponent that sit on the committee.

Sorry, John, that your pals in the old Iraqi army got treated badly, but no pain was involved. Just some gay pr0n for your constituancy. Sucks to be them.

And in 2004 it will suck to be a democrat.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-07 9:35:04 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-07 9:35:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Never complain, Never explain.

Posted by mojo 2004-05-07 11:08:31 AM|| 2004-05-07 11:08:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rummys history. We lose "hearts and minds" in Iraq, and the whole thing goes down the tubes - best we can hope for is an authoritarian leader appointed by Lakthar Brahimi. As it is we seem to be leaning over for Brahimi, and now for the PA too, largely cause of this screw up. Gotta sacrifice someone, and Rummy is the obvious candidate. You lose the Iraq thing and you lose the election anyway. If Rummy were POTUS, and Dubya were SecDef, Rummy would ditch Dubya. Question is who they put in place, and do Wolfie and Feith go too. I certainly hope they stay, and that the new SecDef is not a Powell crony.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 12:17:34 PM|| 2004-05-07 12:17:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 LH: Rummy is one of the most competent Sec Def's in the nation's history. Bush is not stupid enough to let him go just because a bunch of traitorous Democrat asshole's are bloviating for the camera. Ain't gonna happen. If it does Bush is toast. But he and Rove know that so it won't happen.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 1:10:17 PM|| 2004-05-07 1:10:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 1. Rummys management of Afghanistan was masterful, and he has been good in the general WOT.
2. He was very good wrt to the conventional campaign in Iraq
3. It is at this point not possible to say if a better strategy could have been developed for the occupation, and if so, whether rummy (as opposed to State) is responsible for not implenting it.

All in all, Id agree that in the ideal world we'd keep Rummy.

But we dont live in the ideal world. And the Dems are NOT the principle problem with keeping him. The muslims are. Rummy is good, but hes NOT indispensable. The US political position in Iraq and across the muslim world is in jeopardy. The tradeoff may be necessary, even IF (as I dont yet know) Rummy is squeaky clean on Abu Ghraib.

Now before someone responds, I'll freely admit that if you think the hearts and minds game in Iraq and the whole muslim world is of trivial significance,or is to be won purely be being "the strong horse" then the above logic is incorrect. But Rummy himself HAS played the hearts and minds game. So I repeat, if Rummy were POTUS, and Dubya were SecDef, in similar circumstances, Dubya would be gone. For purely strategic reasons.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 2:06:29 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:06:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 LH - I would offer that, regards politics, to sacrifice Rummy would be suicide - imagine the screeching. In other words, it would backfire and merely encourage even more screeching, assuming that's possible. If Bush thinks Rummy is a good SecDef, then he should keep him on the job. To can him is to give a "victory" to people who don't care one whit about the Wot, Afghanistan, or Iraq - they only care about games, political games... and TV "face" time. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by .com 2004-05-07 2:15:45 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:15:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 ...What I find interesting is a comparison with an incident (actually a eries of incidents) in the late 90s involving a USAF fighter unit that was deployed to Soddy for Operation Southern Watch.
Among other things, this unit's personnel were involved in:
*Were making their own moonshine
*Outrageous fraternization and sexual activity between unit members
*"Losing" an AGM-65 Maverick missile (I've heard two stories on this, neither one complimentary)
*Allowed their aircraft to become almost completely non-operational, and
*Engaged in what can only be described as a drunken orgy on the aircraft back, resulting in USAF Security Police being called aboard the plane when they arrived in Europe for refueling.
The entire squadron staff lost their jobs when they got back, and there were dozens of Article 15 hearings. The unit was effectively non-combat ready for months afterwards.
There were no calls for the heads of then-SecDef Cohen or CJCS GEN Shelton, no demands for congressional hearings, no breast-beating about the deplorable actions of our troops.
Consider when this happened...and then I will leave it to Rantburg to decide why you never heard of this before.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-05-07 2:17:08 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:17:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Gotta sacrifice someone, and Rummy is the obvious candidate.
LH, no frigginâ way! Look, I was in there at the start saying weâve got to deal with the prisoner abuse issue head-on, fully and transparently, and that [the perpetratorsâ] heads should roll -- whether the fault was due to acts of commission or acts of omission. I advocated this approach (which, IMO, the application of the UCMJ by the command structure is already pursuing) because of principles of attribution theory, and expectations we developed when we set out to liberate Iraq. BUT WEâVE DONE ALL THAT! President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and all the generals that matter, have already taken the appropriate approach and expressed the appropriate sentiments. They have been thoughtful and have showed great statesmanship -- especially the C-I-C. No one should be sacrificed: thatâs un-American, and unneeded. The âArab Streetâ gets it, I just wish the Dimmy Wits would, too. An excerpt from Arab comments collected at IRAQ THE MODEL blogspot:

here we have the president of the greatest nation on earth apologizes for what a small group of pervert soldiers did. And here, the American press proves that it's free to show the truth. We lived with similar pictures for years until they became the basics of every prison's daily life and we never heard an Arabic paper point them out. These are lessons from the western culture entering the hearts of Arabs, whether the Arab leaders liked or not.

Posted by cingold 2004-05-07 2:27:36 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:27:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 er mike, cause millions of people from Morocco to Indonesia didnt give a damn that USAF folks were getting drunk, screwing each other, or losing missiles. Thats the difference.

Sec State Powell says this has badly hurt the US image and has made his job harder. How much of that is true, and how much is Powell seizing the opportunity to push Rummy out, I wonder? In either case its clear Rummy is crippled. Which is worse Rummy gone, or Rummy walking on eggshells around Powell and the service chiefs? Better a new (HAWKISH) Sec Def whos not implicated in any of this. Any names? McCain is all I can think of, and dont expect that to happen.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 2:29:33 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:29:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Leave Sec. Rumsfeld alone!
What's hurting the US and its prosecution of the war is all this whining!
This problem was/is being taken care of.
President Bush apologizing and announcing that he was aware of and taking care of the problem should have been the end of it, but nooooooooo....
No real torture took place.
Just because these Arabs are from a male-dominated shame culture that doesn't like men to be naked around women who are dominating them while smoking a cigarette is no reason to lose the war because we're "sorry."
While the Enemy represents regimes whose prisons think nothing of real torture, abuse and murder and are never, NEVER held to account.

The world has never held the Japanese accountable for the horrible suffering they inflicted on POWs during WWII.
Ask the men who were in the Bataan Death March if you need help.
This is about the bad guys being "revolted" by powerful and empowered WOMEN.
Suck it up, boys!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 2:38:27 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 2:38:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Cingold - look i love Iraqthemodel, and think guys like him are the future of Iraq, and of the whole muslim world, G-d willing. But I dont think he represents the average Iraqi ( a far bigger chunk than the media imply, but still not the average) and EVEN if he did, we still have the rest of the arab and muslim world to worry about (distinctly more problematic than the population of Iraq, I still think) Im afraid I dont think the Arab street gets it, especially as you go to people who never lived under Saddam, and who get their views from Al Jazeera.

Now Im not saying we should A. Walk out on Iraq or B. Do anything else substantive
to pander to the arab street. But sacrificing somebody for the good of the United States is possible. Weve had lots of Sec Defs, Sec States, etc. In a Republic no one is indispensable.

As for not the American way? I'm not talking about putting Rummy in jail. Im talking about firing him from his job. When your presence in a job detracts from the organizations mission, youre OUT, whether you yourself did anything wrong or NOT. Thats capitalism, man. And War for that matter. This makes you queasy? Well war is hell. Welcome to it.

I dont think Wolfie or Feith could become Sec Def. I dont think ANY Jew can become Sec Def, Sec State, or NSA at this stage in the WOT. Its not the American way, and it sucks(from my personal viewpoint), but its inevitable. War is hell.

But we cant avoid this war, and we cant lose.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 2:42:33 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:42:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Jen
"No reason to lose the war"

Do you really think losing Rummy means losing the war?? What if he gets hit by a car? Do we all ask the French for advice on how to surrender? No individual is indispensable.

Japan - ISTR we did hang Tojo, but not too many other Japanese. Cause we were OCCUPYING Japan. And quite successfully, ultimately. In contrast to say the Japanese occupation of China.

Just being better than whats common in the arab world is NOT enough. Ask the Israelis. We're the outsiders, and the whole rationale for staying in Iraq is to make it a democracy. We HAVE to be almost PERFECT. We can get away with blowing up a mosque that has fighters in it. We can get away with demolishing houses, and bombing cities. We can get away with a lot. But not this. And if you dont like that they have a psychological thing about women, maybe we should have occupied someplace where they didnt have such neuroses. Of course such other place wouldnt have done us much good strategically.

Look im open to someone else being tossed over the side, too bad it wasnt CIA instead of military, since then we could lose Tenet, and keep Rummy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 2:51:03 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:51:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Liberalhawk, you guys on the Left would *love* to get rid of Rummy for any reason or no reason!

I don't think these prison guards did Jack Squat--I've heard of college fraternity initiations that were far worse!
It's certainly no reason to get rid of Rummy--for something that's being handled through proper channels while he's in D.C. prosecuting the War.
I want Rumsfeld heading up the War and no-one else!
John McCain is crazy, but I chalk it up to his being really tortured in that North Vietnamese prison!

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 2:55:40 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 2:55:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 You don't fire Rumsfeld for this kind of thing -- he's doing all the competent things. The Arabs aren't idiots, and I think they see and understand far more than they let on -- even with the spin on Al Jazeera. That's why they are working with us in Najaf to get rid of Sadr, and that's why they are working with us in Fallujah to get rid of the foreign fighters and other lunatics. Change takes time, but we are moving at a record pace. Keeping Rumsfeld, while using the UCMJ to make heads roll is the proper example, and it will be effective. Firing Rumsfeld would simply show that our government is just as arbitrary and capricious as what theyâre used to. Rule of Law, Rule of Law, thatâs what theyâve got to see -- and I believe they are "getting it."

Posted by cingold 2004-05-07 2:57:43 PM|| 2004-05-07 2:57:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Jen - i like Rummy very much. Much more so than Powell or Tenet, BTW. Not as much as Wolfie, but I really do like Rummy. If I could figure out a way to make Powell the scapegoat I would. Or Carl Levin, for that matter. But I cant

CG - You can fire him for any reason you want. Since when do cabinet secretaries have civil service or union protections. Rule of Law in the private sector is "employment at will" and that applies to cabinet rank govt employees as well (well to several thousand political appointees as a matter of fact) Bush can fire Rummy ACCORDING TO THE LAW if he doesnt like the way Rummy combs his hair.

And again Iraq is NOT the entire arab world, and the entire arab world matters. And in Fallujah i think theyre working with us cause they dont want their houses blown up, and I dont know for sure that this is NOT hurting us with the Sunni arab population in Iraq.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:07:17 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:07:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 This is helping us in the "Arab world."
Trust me! Word on the "Arab street" is that the average jihadi would rather die a thousand deaths than be naked in front of a lady guard who's making fun of his small penis!
Remember Mohammed Atta's will?
He didn't even want women at his funeral!

Things are so bad for the Enemy that Osama's having to offer them gold!

And why does there have to be a "scapegoat" other than Corp. English and Gen. Karpinsky?

Rummy is running a Fine War.
I want to keep that up--I love him.
And right now, the USA is winning BIG TIME.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 3:11:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 3:11:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 LH, ?????

I'm not saying Rummy's got an employment law case if he get's fired. That's obviously crazy.

What I am saying is that firing Rummy would send the wrong message to the world at large. The world at large needs to understand that we are governed by the Rule of Law, not the photo op, and we are not going to "sacrifice somebody" to try to please anybody. Firing Rummy would detract from the Rule of Law lesson, which the Iraqis are getting (IRAQ THE MODEL blogspot). This is a teachable moment, and time is best spent applying the Rule of Law -- not looking for trophies!

Posted by cingold 2004-05-07 3:19:00 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:19:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The last liberal reflex to go is the urge to appease.

Posted by someone 2004-05-07 3:21:22 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:21:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 LH: If you think that firing Rumsfeld is going to do anything in the Arab world except encourage our enemies you are off your meds. The only people who would benefit from Rummy's firing would be the Democrats. We don't fire the Sec Def over this crap. Now Cohen (I think he was the guy) should have been fired for refusing adequate air support in Somalia which lead to his troops getting killed. That was a fireable offense. Wretchard is right in his post today. We are going to look back at this before long and realize it was a joke compared to the real issues in this war. It is exposed, it is being dealt with, it will likely not reccur. Move along please.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 3:22:16 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:22:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 RM - count me off my meds, then, cause i think it would stanch the bleeding. If it doesnt wed better come up with something else that will. If you think that applying due process to some mid level guys in military intell will stanch the bleeding, youve got more faith in the sense of the arab world than I do, and im said to be one of the optimists.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:24:54 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:24:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I think you should change your name to Chicken Little rather than Liberal Hawk. WE HAD NO CRED ON THE ARAB STREET BEFORE THIS BUSINESS CAME TO LIGHT, so who cares. The sky is NOT falling. Firing Rumsfeld would do nothing to change the existing situation except to make fat Teddy feel more empowered.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 3:29:00 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:29:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The funny thing about attributions is that some of them are near universal constants (e.g., death is bad, food is good, friends are good . . .). What you see in the Arab comments translated at IRAQ THE MODEL blogspot could be expected, pursuant to attribution theory. Just as the attributions regarding the abuse would (at some unconscious, preverbal level) be something like, âIf you have led me to believe you are better than Saddam, then these pictures are all the more shocking, all the more disappointing, and I will all the more believe that all American soldiers are like this until you prove otherwise;â I think, now (given the efforts of Pres. Bushâs administration), the attributions are likely to be something like, âI have been told you are heartless monsters who abuse your power to please yourself, but here you are apologizing and promising to punish the guilty (when in my county might make right, and you are the most mighty of the mighty), and this is something I donât see from my own government -- maybe you are not that bad.â

Posted by cingold 2004-05-07 3:50:00 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:50:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Geez, remote, i thought name calling like that was more common on the left.

I think we do still have some cred in the arab street.

In any case the administration thinks so. Why are they running around backing off their position on Palestine, or at least making an effort to make it look like they are? Why are we spending vast sums on broadcasting to the arab world? Cmon, all im asking for is consistency. If the Arab street is trivial, then the admin policy which to some extent focuses on it is wrong. And whats the point of having Iraq as a model if the model cant spread? Seems to be the whole grand strategy is predicated on the idea that WE DO have some street cred, and that it will grow as they see real democracy established in Iraq. I dont think Rummy would disagree, and if he would, Id like to see the quotes.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:50:49 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 By the way, im happy to see y'all dont support the Bush policy on education.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:52:15 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:52:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I support it, what's your point?
(That all we Bushies are uneducated, IYHO?)

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 3:53:37 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 3:53:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Quick quiz Jen, what the one key word in the Bush education policy?

Hint, it starts with an A, and ends with a y.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:56:31 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:56:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Libr'ulhawk, and that's as opposed to the marvelous Clinton education policy, which was nonexistent?
If you Dims could come up with something superior to NCLB, why didn't you?
And sKerry's plan is to *make* a million more American teens graduate from high school (whether they can read or not).
Great plan.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 3:56:50 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 3:56:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 There must be something wrong with the Bush ed policy, since y'all dont like its key concept. Figured it out yet?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:58:34 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:58:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 I'll even spot you another letter. Second letter is a "c".

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 3:59:09 PM|| 2004-05-07 3:59:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Acrimony is all that comes to mind, at the moment â and Iâm not ascribing it to Bush.

Is anyone else here getting the disturbing feeling that this will seem silly and irrelevant very soon â a tempest in a teapot?

We have some serious delusional thinking present.. No, not LH â the hearings! Atomic Conspiracy predicted a level of civil strife was coming about a week ago - and his idea has already lost any sense of novelty or incredibility. It seems to me weâre only an incident away from a serious ugly and bloody confrontation between the screeching socialists and those who believe in American ideals. The current LLL mentality, bearing all of the hallmarks of the Salem Witch Trials and McCarthy Hearings, particularly in the level of hysteria, goes deeper and has more momentum than I thought. Silly me, I know.

Posted by .com 2004-05-07 4:06:36 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:06:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 LH, what is this--Wheel of Fortune?!?
I don't have kids and if I did, I'd like to think they wouldn't go to public schools, so I only know the rudiments of NCLB.
I'll guess "Academy."

FOAD, LH. You're triangulating your issues with the Bush Administration.
Betcha what you really hate are the Faith-based Charities and the fact that President Bush is a vocal Christian.

You're just a garden variety, pedestrian Bush-hater.
Been there, seen that, got the T-shirt, got the mousepad.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 4:06:51 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 4:06:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 The last liberal reflex to go is the urge to appease

During WW2, FDR and Churchill negotiated with Italian generals to get Italy out of the war, supported an anti-Semite collaborationist Vichyite, Darlan, as ruler of French North Africa, and of course worked side by side with the Soviet Union for four years.

You cant be pure in war. (kind of ironic in THIS debate). You dont appease your enemies, but you DO appease the neutrals. If you hate that kind of thing, you can pretend there ARE no neutrals, or at least no neutrals who want you to do anything you wouldnt have done anyway. I dont think thats the case now, but y'all are free to believe it anyway. I dont think Rummy or Bush do, though.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:07:00 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:07:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 No, not acrimony or academy.

I'll spot you the next letter = another c.

And the letter after that is o.

Big hint. Think of the context of this thread.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:08:44 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:08:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 I dont have any problems with Bush's religion.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:09:32 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:09:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 tell me when you give up.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:10:49 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:10:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Dotcom, wouldn't suprise me.
This whole "Iraqi abuse thing" is just another partisan witch hunt.
It's serving 3 purposes to the Left (at least):
1. To make the military look "systemically" corrupt and barbaric a la My Lai, Lt. Calley and sKerry's "baby killers" in Vietnam.
2. As an occasion to get rid of one of the Left's biggest enemies: Donald Rumsfeld, who's prosecuting a most successful war effort.
3. To put all of the (media) spotlight on the Bush Administration and taking care of this "scandal," so that they won't have to focus on what Vietnam Vets are saying about John Kerry--the dramatic and shocking press conference the other night on C-SPAN 2 by the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry went almost uncovered by the LLL press.
I think the real brawl will be in Boston this summer; the Dim convention may be as wild or wilder than Chicago 1968.
I'm buying popcorn.
The Dims just shoot themselves in the foot more with each and every one of these "scandals" and "outrages" that they manufacture.
They deserve to lose and LOSE BIG this November and forever after for putting our country through absolute SHIT like this and at a time when we are at war and members of our Armed Forces are being shot at and killed by the Enemy as this pathetic spectacle goes on here.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 4:16:42 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 4:16:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Gosh LH, the word you are looking for is "Accountability". So you are saying that by not firing Rumsfeld the Bush administration is not holding true to its ideals. That is crap and you know it. The investigation on this matter occurred in January. The information on the investigation was released to the press then as well and again in February. The perpetrators of these incidents are being investigated and will be punished. Sure sounds like accountability to me. If accountability means that Bush should jump when Teddy or Maxine Waters say jump then you can have it. Of course those individuals wouldn't know accountability if it bit them in the ass. If they did, Teddy would have a felony conviction and not be sitting in the Senate.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 4:19:33 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:19:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 RM - under no child left behind, the school systems and priniciples are responsible for RESULTs - no saying it was the fault of the teachers, or the department heads. No saying - well I broke no rules. The results are bad, you face consequences. Thats what accountability means, in EDUCATION.

here we have a situation where a major fuck up happens, and where it would be IMO very useful internationally to fire Rummy, and everyone is running around squeamish about how unfair and unAmerican that would be, and how it would in some way conflict with the rule of law.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:31:09 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:31:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Well, I would say that the education of children is a bit different than the prosecution of war, but maybe that's just me. Besides, the education establishment (overwhelmingly Democrat) has not produced acceptable results going back at least 35 years.

You want results, lets see, in 3 years two countries with a combined population of 50 million people have been freed from horrific regimes. Saddam and his spawn are either captured or dead. There has been huge progress in Iraq including progress on a constitution. The handover is coming in about 50 days. And we have not been attacked since 9/11.

Abu Ghraib is an incident, not a failure of the campaign. I appreciate that you think firing Rummy would be a great way to respond to this, but I think, and clearly most Rantburgers think that would be a horrible response to an incident. The last time I checked the Secretary of Education was not fired because of Columbine.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 4:40:33 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:40:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Liberalhawk, What piffle!
I don't see anyone NOT being accountable--in fact, that's why the Dimocrats (who are EVIL and on the side of the terrorists) are working it for everything it's worth!
They know that one of President Bush's biggest values is personal accountability and responsibility.
Having Rummy resign would accomplish nothing and for what?
Because he wasn't informed when a lady private farted in Iraq?
Typical Clintonista to love resignations....
How many of those did we witness during those 8 looooooonnnnnngggggg years of Beelzebubba?

I can't believe my President is having to spend his time on an incident involving a half-dozen military guards who *might* have gone over the line who are already being investigated and, if necessary, reprimanded by the Pentagon and who didn't do any physical harm to these Iraqi prisoners when we have 135,000 good and decent American soldiers who are in harm's way in that same country!
We are at war!
Get behind the troops and the President and his SecDef or move to Riyahd...or France.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 4:41:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 4:41:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 This has been a very enlightening thread.

"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
-Mark Twain

Lol! Applicable to all of us, approximately equally, methinks. :^)

Posted by .com 2004-05-07 4:42:14 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Dotcom, I love ya, but I don't think it's a joking matter.
The Left is seriously trying to compromise the war effort with this whole mess and I am worried that they may succeed.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 4:47:11 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 4:47:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 RM - and Douglas McArthur was brilliant at Inchon - but when it was time for him to go(over something totally different, of course) he went. We've accomplished alot during the occupation - but as far i can tell 90% of that has been by soldiers on the ground, INCLUDING much of the reconstruction and hearts and minds work. The actual work by the CPA has been a disaster. I mean if calling up ex-Iraqi generals is a good idea now, why want it last May? Why 135,000 troops instead of 150,000? Why not do more with local Iraqi elected bodies, instead of tribal sheiks and mullahs? Why on again off again de-baathification? Why on again and off again with the UN? Come on the occupation as far as the CPA is concerned has been incompetent. You DONT have to be a lefty of any kind to think that. Not Bushes fault, to be sure - but Bremer couldnt be fired, or anyone at Defense or State.

Oh I know, Bremer and even Powell wanted to be tougher about the UN and Debaathification, and all that, but Dan Rather and Ted Kennedy stopped them. Yeah, right. "I tried to get the test scores up, but the PTA wouldnt go along"

Dot com boom - youre on to something.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:50:57 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:50:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Jen - Thx! I'm just offering the "agree to disagree" olive branch. I certainly think everyone has expounded their various positions pretty thoroughly here, including me. What else can be said - without future regret? Live well and prosper, heh. ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-05-07 4:51:55 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:51:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Dot com and i disagree on much, but i think we both realize that BOTH of us care very much about winning the war, and despair at policies that we think will lose it. We dont alway agree on what those policies ARE, but we both want to WIN, very badly.

If we LOSE I expect to be high on the Khalifats list for execution.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:53:13 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:53:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 "we either all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang seperately" Ben Franklin.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 4:55:20 PM|| 2004-05-07 4:55:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 LH: In your post #47, it seems that you are implying either Bremer or Powell should be fired because of the poor record of the CPA. We'll if you are looking for an argument, you've come to the wrong place. Again, I believe it is the hand of the State Department that is driving the CPA. I think the DoD is the one sane group in the bunch. At least they get outside the Green Zone on occasion. So your comment makes it all the more odd that you want Rummy fired.

Posted by remote man 2004-05-07 5:04:22 PM|| 2004-05-07 5:04:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 LH, if you truly want to win this war then you'll SHUT UP, if you'll forgive me.
The resignation of Rumsfeld would accomplish nothing and would see one of the most successful prosecutors of an American war fall on his sword to satiate the absolution complex of Dimocrat political faux Puritanism.
The Dims aren't sorry we use our female soldiers' domination to subdue male chauvinist terrorists, they're just sorry for everything America stands for and that it isn't Communism.

The Clintoon Administration made sure we had lots of women in the military in combat positions and now, we've put them to effective use in the war theater and all you Dims can do is whine and complain and say that's not what they intended.
Why don't we have the Enemy address what they did to Jessica Lynch?
I read where she had to have a collostomy because of her "injuries."
Her whole body is forever messed up.
She had to call off her wedding--let's guess why.
She can barely walk.
Are you sure you want us to win this war?

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 5:09:01 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 5:09:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Count me in as a dissenter, lh - youi can't win the argument, so you change the subject. Classic LLL technique. I'll bite anyway:

The Education Department was created as a sop to the NEA for supporting Jimmah Carter back in 1976, which helped greatly for him to win the election. No one in their right mind can argue that ~~government~~ public schools have gotten measurably better as a result; they've gotten much worse.

Nuke the DOE.

Posted by Raj 2004-05-07 5:20:00 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-05-07 5:20:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Jen - Don't count out PFC Lynch so much. She appears to be quite a fighter. Although she is walking with a cane, she seems a whole lot better than those rescue pic from last year. I found a photo of her at last week's WH Correspondants dinner.

Jessica Lynch is in #6

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-07 5:45:31 PM|| 2004-05-07 5:45:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Watching the Inquisition on the evening news, I could just see the entire military organization in Iraq that's in charge of prisoners freezing all interrogation activities that have any remote resemblance to psychological coercion, out of fear. Intel collection essentially frozen. How are we supposed to win a war with no interrogation?

Posted by virginian 2004-05-07 7:45:57 PM|| 2004-05-07 7:45:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Also, as far as Jessica Lynch is concerned, she might have had to postpone her wedding (this is the first I've heard of that), but she and her boyfriend certainly haven't given up on each other. In fact, there was an item in today's Washington Post describing how Jessica begged off (with regrets) from a second chance to meet GWB (she'd already met him and Laura at the dinner) so that she could catch a plane in order to be in time for her boyfriend's birthday. The article said, in fact, it was Wolfie who conveyed the message to Jessica that it was OK for her to take off, while she was fretting about disappointing one or the other.

Ah, here we go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7066-2004May6.html

Posted by Joe 2004-05-07 8:09:41 PM|| 2004-05-07 8:09:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 LH -- given that the military handled the investigation exactly as they should, why should anyone not involved in the abuses be accountable for them?

At the risk of throwing an incendiary reference into the debate, I don't remember too many people calling for Janet Reno's resignation after Waco. And to be blunt, the military has handled this a hell of a lot better than the DOJ handled the Waco investigations.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-07 8:23:39 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-07 8:23:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Joe, here ya go:
Jessica Lynch delays June wedding

Posted by Jen 2004-05-07 8:37:24 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-07 8:37:24 PM|| Front Page Top

05:25 Super Hose
02:53 Anonymous4617
02:49 Anonymous4617
01:52 BigEd
00:58 Zenster
00:14 Robert Crawford
00:12 Jack Deth
23:53 Aris Katsaris
23:53 Barbara Skolaut
23:46 Ol_Dirty_American
23:41 Douglas De Bono
23:40 Jen
23:37 CrazyFool
23:35 Aris Katsaris
23:26 Jen
23:24 Jarhead
23:23 GK
23:22 Jarhead
23:21 .com
23:16 Jen
23:11 .com
23:11 Jen
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 Anonymoose