Rumsfeld responsible for Abu Ghraib?

The New Yorker is about to fully release its newest piece by Seymour Hersch (the journalist responsible for, along with CBS, breaking the first Abu Ghraib-stories) - it's supposed to be published tomorrow, but the story is already on their website.

Summary:

Last week:
Rumsfeld, before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib: “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.”

Now:
A senior C.I.A. official interviewed by Hersch: “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”

According to Hersch's sources, the Abu Ghraib incidents aren't isolated incidents. The soldiers committing the {methods of interrogation/attrocities/your own term here} handled so because they were told to... by Rumsfeld himself.
The {methods of interrogation/attrocities/your own term here} are part of a decision approved by Mr. Rumsfeld. A decision to expand secret operations originally approved to hunt down Al Qaeda, to the Iraqi prisons.

Full Story.

Can't wait for reactions...

Edit: first reactions...

Reuters: Pentagon calls claims "outlandish", and seeks to quash Rumsfeld report

Yeah, I saw this on the new's. Personally, I don't like Rumsfield and think's he does a piss port job of Defense Secretary. BUT, I think the claims that are being made such as "He endorsed it" or "He told the solider's to abuse them" or "He encouraged the abuse" is a little too far-fetched. I think it's a little bit ludicrous of a claim, but I dunno.. Interesting nonetheless.

Now if he really did tell the solider's to use those "method's" or whatever you wanna call them to get information (or for the sick fun, if that's what he wanted) then I honestly don't know what to say other than he should be shot, stabbed, and hung all at the same time. :D I mean but seriously, if he did then he should be put to trial along with them as an accompliss to harrassment (or whatever the charges are that are filed against the soliders).

If the accusation is true then I agree with Spyder32, however I would have him drawn and quartered. Much more painful and enduring than simply hanging or stabbing.

This does bring up one concern that I have noticed within the Demorcatic party in America, and that concern revolves around all of the investigations that are occurning, directed at Republicans or Entities that are associated with Big Business, govermental Big Brother, and military personas. It often seems to me that, to the Democrats, it is not really an issue of are the accusations true, rather they seem to be concerned about how serious the accusation is, no matter how absurd. Is the accusation possible (YES), is the accusation probably (NO). Unless you live your life under tha auspice of a continual "conspiracy theory" you should be able to weigh the probability against the possibility and come to a logical conclusion, Not hear a serious but ludicrous charge, and then start screaming that the sky is falling. Investigate, determine the facts, then pass judgement. Democrats are always willing to defend the "innocent until proven guilty" standard in America's court systems. Especially when it comes to drug dealers, murders, rapists, Martha Stewartists ;) , and so forth. Why can't the Democratic party extend this concept into all of these so called "Scandals?" Oh well, I guess that's politics.

Overdue..its just politics the repubs did the same thing with clinton.

As for rumsfeild, I would realy like to see taht list of
"interagation" methods that needed his personal approval....something tells me this guy should be handed over t othe hauge

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Overdue..its just politics the repubs did the same thing with clinton.

As for rumsfeild, I would realy like to see taht list of
"interagation" methods that needed his personal approval....something tells me this guy should be handed over t othe hauge

---

The Situation was different for Clinton though. Lewenski was a byproduct of the lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment, if my memory serves me correctly. What the Republicans became all up in arms about, was the President Clinton being caught lying under oath. Not that Republicans have not been caught doing the same thing in the past. It is true that the Republicans did attack Clinton over Lewenski, but this was a natural progression of outrage over sexual misconduct after Clinton's admittance of guilt. With Rumsfeld all you have accusations of his condoning the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, not an admission of guilt. If Rumsfeld is caught lying then he is fair game, otherwise the Left needs to keep the playing field level until something more concrete than accusations are revealed.

What I don't get is why the hunt for political blood? Hell the **** that went down was under investigation LONG before the press supposedly broke the story.

because Kerry is weak and they need everything they can to get more votes.

yes im sure when rumsfeld ok'd it, which im sure he did and with good reason, he also added that he wanted men to masturbate and act like queers in front of the enemy and woman to pull trains. oh yeah! and take lots of pictures of it all for the press.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Cybr1d
because Kerry is weak and they need everything they can to get more votes.

---

No, it is so you will yell and scream that the <enter your party of choise> are better, and that the <enter party of choise> are the root cause of <enter situation>. Its an election year.

They don't want you to notice that gasoline is at record highs ($2.25 per gallon) and climbing higher. They don't want you to realize that you have virtually lost all of the 'Bill of Rights'. They don't want you to notice that unemployement is setting records again.

They want you to focas on the 'Great American Circus'.....politics.

Edit- and both parties are at fault.

I gotta agree with moxnix about both parties being at fault and I also gotta agree that they don't want you to notice alot of the thing's wrong in America these days (such as unemployment, gasoline prices, poverty, etc). These are key issue's that need to be paid more attention because I care more about our countries problem's then another countries. But no, the U.S has to be the last priority and the world come's before us. :( It's pretty sad..

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why the hunt for political blood?

---

I was only answering to that :).


But I do agree with you moxnix, both parties have their own flaws...and neither one wants to take responsibility for anything...they just like to point fingers. Although I dont like either Bush, nor Kerry, I do support the president though......whoever it might be.

Quote:

---

both parties have their own flaws...and neither one wants to take responsibility for anything...they just like to point fingers.

---

It's called politics and the lust for power...... over us.......

How difficult is that?

Quote:

---

I do support the president though......whoever it might be.

---

You do, even when the cause for his action's and decision's are total B/S?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Spyder32

Quote:

---

I do support the president though......whoever it might be.

---

You do, even when the cause for his action's and decision's are total B/S?

---

Well, to me it would be like supporting your company(country) when your boss is a total idiot. You support him only to keep the company from failing, but work internally to have him replaced.

I don't support any politician, but I do support my country. I might not like it sometimes, but it is all I have. If I could find a better system somewhere, then I should move and support that, but as I have never found a significantly better system I am here.

Well....as for supporting my coutry...I support both, my birthplace and the US...I moved here 6 years ago. I'd give my life for both of them if needed, but we assign a president by majority...and I'm pretty confident that If we get a president thats THAT big of a ****tard...we'd get rid of him hopefully before he really screws up. We've had worse...we'll pull through.

moxnix, I can say I agree with you again ;) I support our country (I love our country, none better IMO) as much as anybody would and that's no question's asked. But yes, this is all I have and I will support it to death. Damn, now I kinda feel how those Iraqi's were in supporting Saddam. Maybe because they didn't have a choice, that they just supported the country and not him, per say..?

Thank you Spyder32, you caught the double meaning that I didn't mention out right (hense using company instead of country).

Quote:

---

Damn, now I kind of feel how those Iraqi's were in supporting Saddam. Maybe because they didn't have a choice, that they just supported the country and not him, per say..?

---

A lot of the Iraqi's were never supporting Saddam. They were supporting their government, their religion, and their country. They were fighting to protect the only way of life they know, and/or understand.
When I was in Viet Nam, I had a lot of respect for the North Vietnamese and even the Viet Cong. I didn't have very much respect (any?) for South Vietnamese men. (The women are different...they had it bad under both sides, and little if any voice in the matter) And if I had been raised in Viet Nam, I would hope that I would have supported the North against the French....and then us.
Does that mean that I didn't fight for my country.....NO. I supported my country and the lifestyle I know, but I could also recognize that they might not believe in the same values I hold.

From Viet Nam, I learned that war isn't brought on by the people.....just the politicians and governments that sit safely at home, most of the time. 9/11 changed that for a lot of Americans, but unfortunately not enough of the politicians have learned from it. One war we are fighting, I agree with completely. The other war I don't. The motivations for each of these wars are different, even if our politicians are telling us they are the same.

So in retro, it's all a matter of understanding the politic's, religeon, background, and overall way of life for the other side. Unfourtunately, neither side in this war has been able to do that (and they problably never will). Not everyone will always believe in the same value's which is why we have desputes. Now when despute's turn to war's or whatever, that's when thing's get sad.

Quote:

---

The motivations for each of these wars are different, even if our politicians are telling us they are the same.

---

Oh, but of course. And in my eye's, the president only has justification for only one of these war's. The other one he want's for his own personal reason's/gain/etc. He use's the justification from the one war to coinside with the other one to play to the public so we buy into it. Sadly for him, alot of american's aren't, we just don't have much of a choice.

In the mean time, Reuters (one of the biggest, if not the biggest press agency in the world) accuses American troops of mistreating three of their Iraqi employees. The three were arrested earlier this year while filming the shooting of a helicopter. They say to have been beaten and, amongst other things, be told to put their shoes in their mouths (a serious injury for muslims) while soldiers were laughing and taking pictures.
Reuters is requesting a serious investigation...

The Reuters article

And four suspects ("working" for Al Zarqawi, the Jordan terrorist) in the Berg-case have been arrested in Iraq.