NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question. Rumsfeld stated unequivocably that he hadn't read more than the summary of the report about the abuses until after the pictures aired and that the first he saw them was the night before he testified. also, GW first he saw the photographs the night they were aired.

But Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, personally called Dan Rather and asked CBS-TV to delay airing the photographs it has obtained of abuse at Abu Ghraib in Mid April claiming that the photos would exacerbate an intense period of violence under way in Iraq. CBS did delay its program for two weeks.

And according to testimony Myers then stated that the first he actually read the full report was last Tuesday!

OK. Now how does this work?

Myers of his own volition when hearing about the photos went to CBS and then still did not read the report? Did not follow up with Rumsfeld to inform him about this? Just made the call and forgot about it?

i.e. - is the Pentagon in the business of cencoring domestic media without explaining why to it's political masters? Do they not even warn their political masters that they have done so in case the media in question approaches their bosses for clarification? Or they do warn their masters who just say "yeah.... whatever you want Dick!"

I find all that hard to believe.

Very hard.

Anyone else buying that this story got to the top of the armed forces chain of command, but that Myers stepped in to censor it and then just sat and twiddled his thumbs? And that everyone else did too?


Well - if that is the case then Myers should be sacked forthwith for incompetence and for exceeding his authority.


But lets get real shall we?

In reality, there is no way the Chariman of the JCS got personally involved in such a matter without at least telling Rumsfeld about it, and without doing some pre-emptive damage control. No chance in hell.

So - Rumsfeld at least knew about the pictures in mid-april, knew they were going to hit the media soon, must have known that documented abuse of prisoners would be explosive, and yet according to him did not even bother checking out the issue himself (i.e ask to see what the hell was about to hit the fan) until after the fact.

And according to him he didn't even warn his boss - GW - about what was coming down the pipes either. Well of course he didn't... because he couldn't be bothered to ask for a copy of something that the JCS thought was so inflamatory as to withhold it from the American people.


That is one hell of a chain of events isn't it?

Complete disregard for an imminent explosive issue to hit the media?

Complete lack of action after being informed that prisoner abuse was documented?

Complete lack of anything really.



Has he learned anything from it?

Nope. Referring to photos of sexual and physical abuse that have drawn worldwide condemnation, Rumsfeld warned there are "a lot more photographs and videos" that haven't yet been seen. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

He also said he had not seen the videos, and did not describe them.

How the hell is he supposed to provide ANY leadership on this issue if he can't be bothered to look into it? The most explosive issue affecting his credibility, and he can't be bothered to say "show me the worst so I know what we're up against". Can't be bothered to do much of anything it seems.... besides complain about the people "running around Iraq qwith cameras taking illegall pictures!"

Yep.... it's the documentation that's the problem Donald. If I were you I'd put out the word that all soldiers must relinquish all recording devices to their superior officers forthwith.


Part and parcel of why I refer to this as a complete failure of leadership. And a failure from the top down.


-Z-

*edited for clarity after rereading..... z*

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.

You're saying that I flunk the "just swallow what they feed ya" test?

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20040510/lnq040511.gif

:lol:

-Z-

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.

Hey..no ganging up here FOUL..FOUL...husband and wife team...FOUL... geesh..I'm gonna have to get the boys online just to even out matters..we Indians have always been outnumbered..time we leveled the playing field..lol..

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.

Hey..no ganging up here FOUL..FOUL...husband and wife team...FOUL... geesh..I'm gonna have to get the boys online just to even out matters..we Indians have always been outnumbered..time we leveled the playing field..lol..

I personally have a deep respect for Native Americans.. I'm sort of surprised you being one that you have such blind trust in the government though I must say.

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.

Hey..no ganging up here FOUL..FOUL...husband and wife team...FOUL... geesh..I'm gonna have to get the boys online just to even out matters..we Indians have always been outnumbered..time we leveled the playing field..lol..

Hmmmm didn't know that attacking Myers 'n Rummy was ganging up on you Salishe....

unless .....



Donald? Is that you?

:lol:

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.I think it fits exactly with the preconcieved bias of both of you and much of this forum.

With regards to Zep's post, a copy of the report that you kept alluding to was visible on the floor during Rumsfelds testimony before the Senate. The report appeared to be at leaste a foot thick. Having someone else read it and write a summary was completely apropriate, given that while this is an important matter, Rumsfeld does have other things to do. What Gen. Meyers did was, in my opinion, a misguided attempt to protect the forces in Iraq from reprisals for the actions in the photos. While it was inapropriate, it is his job to protect forces under his command. When did Bush and Rumsfeld know about the Abuse or the photos? I don't know and you don't either. In my opinion, the abuse is much more a result of cuts to the military budget than some culture of depravity that many think is encouraged by Bush and Co.

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.I think it fits exactly with the preconcieved bias of both of you and much of this forum.

With regards to Zep's post, a copy of the report that you kept alluding to was visible on the floor during Rumsfelds testimony before the Senate. The report appeared to be at leaste a foot thick. Having someone else read it and write a summary was completely apropriate, given that while this is an important matter, Rumsfeld does have other things to do. What Gen. Meyers did was, in my opinion, a misguided attempt to protect the forces in Iraq from reprisals for the actions in the photos. While it was inapropriate, it is his job to protect forces under his command. When did Bush and Rumsfeld know about the Abuse or the photos? I don't know and you don't either. In my opinion, the abuse is much more a result of cuts to the military budget than some culture of depravity that many think is encouraged by Bush and Co.


Ahem?

The complete report is only 51 pages long including annexes and references.

you can read it right here (http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=2479)

What they pointed to was a document included every single individual report cross-referenced with the supporting paperwork - and no I did not expect anyone to read that.

But 51 pages and a peek at the what was going to be on the news, plus a "brief me on the worst of it" was definitely in order.

-Z-

Oh stop making so much sense Zep, no one here wants that. It doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived bias.

Hey..no ganging up here FOUL..FOUL...husband and wife team...FOUL... geesh..I'm gonna have to get the boys online just to even out matters..we Indians have always been outnumbered..time we leveled the playing field..lol..

I personally have a deep respect for Native Americans.. I'm sort of surprised you being one that you have such blind trust in the government though I must say.

Oh believe you me..I have ZERO trust in the Federal Government..in fact that is why I left the Republican Party after nearly 25 yrs or so..to many palefaces..almost zero faces of color..get my drift..plus..the first time one of those damn Reed wannabees told me I couldn't wear my feather in my hair but yet I said if he could wear his cross on his lapel I could wear my feather..I'm an Indepedent....a centrist that leans to the right on some issues..left on others..on most issues military..I am probably a right-winger..but I am a passionate believer in the destiny of the American Indian....we won't always be treated like tolerated step-children..some years ago on the Ogolala Sioux reservation a white buffalo was born, a good sign for Indians no matter what tribe you belonged too. In my youth I was even a member of the American Indian Movement..lol..if you could have seen me post-Vietnam..full of spit and radicalism for Indians..

I find it interesting that the report you cited presented, as far as I can tell, an account oposite of your interpretation of the events in Abu Grahib prison.

I do enjoy when people take on my husband. They always look so foolish when he's done with them. It is truly one of the reasons I married him, for his razor sharpe mind. :wink:

I look foolish as often as anyone, I guess. But, I have a , sometimes troublesome, tendancy to not be intimidated or back down. In my mind, I am right until proven wrong.

but I am a passionate believer in the destiny of the American Indian....we won't always be treated like tolerated step-children..some years ago on the Ogolala Sioux reservation a white buffalo was born, a good sign for Indians no matter what tribe you belonged too. In my youth I was even a member of the American Indian Movement..lol..if you could have seen me post-Vietnam..full of spit and radicalism for Indians..

pardon the hijack, but do you mind if i ask you your opinoin on the leonard peltier case?

I find it interesting that the report you cited presented, as far as I can tell, an account oposite of your interpretation of the events in Abu Grahib prison.

Not sure why you are complaining about the contents of that report in this thread. It really is a side-issue to what I am talking about in this thread. I'm not arguing it's contents nor interpreting the events. I'm arguing the whole "gosh... who knew?" bit going on. The lack of oversight into the investigation. The lack of followup. That is just the report of the initial investigation started in January and completed in February. The one Rumsfeld couldn't be bothered to read - even after CBS aired the photos. Not until the night before having to read it in order to testify about it.

The only reason I gave you the link to it was because of the assetion that it was some monsterous document that no-one could have read.

Now, if you want to argue my assertions about their actions, from Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate armed services transcript of May 7: (http://www.herald-sun.com/nationworld/14-478494.html)

BILL NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, when did you first see the photos?

RUMSFELD: Last night about 7:30.



The photos hit the news on April 30. He didn't see them until MAy 6th?

Some details on the timeline of the investigation: (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/05/07/abuse.timeline.ap/index.html)

Noteable line items:



March 12: Taguba presents his report to his commanders. He finds widespread abuse of prisoners by military police and military intelligence. He also agrees with Ryder that guards should not play any role in the interrogation of prisoners.

Mid-April: Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asks CBS-TV to delay airing photographs it has obtained of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Myers says the photos would exacerbate an intense period of violence under way in Iraq. CBS delays its program for two weeks

April 28: CBS airs the photos, setting off an international outcry. Bush first learns about these photos from the television report, his aides say.

May 3: Bush urges Rumsfeld to make sure that any guilty U.S. soldiers are punished for "shameful and appalling acts." Rumsfeld's aides say he has not yet read the Taguba report, although they say he has kept abreast of the allegations of mistreatment.



Now - I've showed you the report - all 51 pages of it. Not a one foot thick document unless it also included all of the references and interview transcripts. You read it. Why couldn't Rummy take the time? Especially after finding out that it was about to hit the fan? Even four days after it DID hit the fan - still hadn't bothered.

I've shown where Myers interfered with the press.

I've shown where Rumsfeld stated that he still didn't bother checking up on either the photos or the report even after they showed up in the news. Would he ever hav read it if he hadn't had to testify about it? I wonder.

Incidentaly.. how could he NOT have seen them between when the story broke and the night before his testimony? Does this guy not check ANY news sources besides what his aides give him? It was on every chanel and in every paper!

heck... according to Fox News not only did Bush not know about it until the story broke... but neither did Rumsfeld! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119156,00.html) That would have you beleive that Myers interferes with the press without telling his civillian masters about it. You buying that?


Meanwhile...here is report saying Bremmer knew in JAnuary (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040507/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoner_abuse_42). How did that not get kicked upstairs in one of his discussions with his boss?

How does all this stuff go on without GW or Rumsfeld seeming to know about it? Especially when the two people just below them regarding Iraq(Myers and Bremmer) did?

I couldn't find all the testimony to the house as well.... but Jon Stewart used the clip that shows how Rummy seemed most pissed about the fact that people were running around taking pictures than he was about the abuse itself. (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8140.html)

HEy - that one id worth a watch just because it's Jon Stewart :D

Now, is this enough documentation for you of my assertions regarding timelines and statements that I attribute to various parties and that I feel clearly shows how this thing was fumbled at the leadership level?

What I'm saying is that people seem to be asleep at the switch. And even when they do hear critical things like this - they don't bother following up.

The facts at hand seem to support that.

-Z-

Perhaps in mid-April there were a number of activities going on in Iraq that were of a slightly higher priority than the prison abuse. This does not imply that the abuse is acceptable or pardonable but placed against other actions at the time, it might have been kept at lower levels of command. Obviously an investigation had been ongoing by the military so the matter was being addressed. I do believe that as long as those responsible are punished there should be no need to go public with all the fan fare. Military personnel have been arrested, judged and punished for any number of crimes from petty theft to murder. I do not suspect that the President and Secretary of Defense are alerted each time.

Perhaps in mid-April there were a number of activities going on in Iraq that were of a slightly higher priority than the prison abuse. This does not imply that the abuse is acceptable or pardonable but placed against other actions at the time, it might have been kept at lower levels of command. Obviously an investigation had been ongoing by the military so the matter was being addressed. I do believe that as long as those responsible are punished there should be no need to go public with all the fan fare. Military personnel have been arrested, judged and punished for any number of crimes from petty theft to murder. I do not suspect that the President and Secretary of Defense are alerted each time.

I don't see where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally calling Dan Rather to hold the story constitutes "lower levels of command".

How did it get to the top of the JCS, have him deem it important enough to step in, but have it stop there?

Or is unilateral censorship now part of his job description?

And knowing he just bought a delay... you think he didn't mention it to Rumsfeld to warn him that it was coming?

If so - then like I first said - he should be fired for incompetence.

-Z-

And where is the documentation of this conversation with good ol' Dan?

And where is the documentation of this conversation with good ol' Dan?

What? the linked article showing that CNN stated it as fact isn't enough for you? You think they just pulled it out of their butts?

Nice try!

But to humour your lack of ability to research on your own - it's right in the aforementioned and linked testomony to the House Armed Services Committee... and right from General Myers mouth.

When discussing that conversation he stated:

When I spoke to Dan Rather, with whom I already had a professional association, concerning the 60 Minutes story, I did so after talking to General Abizaid. And I did so out of concern for the lives of our troops. The story about the abuse was already public, but we were concerned But we were concerned that broadcasting the actual pictures would further inflame the tense situation that existed then in Iraq and further endanger the lives of coalition soldiers and hostages.


Do you even watch the news?

-Z-

the Major General who testified today blamed the abuse on:

1. Lack of training
2. No dicipline
3. Lack of Leadership

The blame for number 1 can be placed on the company's training NCO, usually a Staff Sgt (E-6).

The blame for number 2 can be put upon the company's 1st Sgt., Platoon Sgts, and Squad Leaders. We are talking about an E-8, two or three E-7s, and a few more E-6's and possibly E-5's

The lack of leadership can be blamed upon the Company Commander (a captain, O-3) and upon the Senior NCO's like the 1st Sgt and Platoon Sgts.

Remember, only soldiers from one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, have been accused of this abuse. I would be suprised if anyone above the rank of Captain is court-martialed because of these abuses. I strongly believe that these incidents were done by only this unit and these were isolated and do not reflect the way most EPWs/detainees/prisoners are treated in US/UK hands.

For a moment I thought this thread may have been about me :oops: :roll: :lol: :D

Remember, only soldiers from one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, have been accused of this abuse. I would be suprised if anyone above the rank of Captain is court-martialed because of these abuses. I strongly believe that these incidents were done by only this unit and these were isolated and do not reflect the way most EPWs/detainees/prisoners are treated in US/UK hands.

At a minimum it is a battalion. It appears to be systemic in both the 800th Military Police and 205th Military Intelligence Brigades.
Question involving Camp Bucca and the 320th Military Police Battalion, are also being raised.
And, of course there are the long standing reports of abuses at Camp X-Ray and Bagram Airbase. (I admit I ignored the reports on Guantanamo and Afghanistan as anti-American agitprop before, but they have gained significant credibility now...)

The problem is widespread.

For a moment I thought this thread may have been about me :oops: :roll: :lol: :D

You're so vain. I bet you think this thread is about you! Don't you? Don't you?

And to be more relevant, there's this little thing called plausible deniability. Now that excuse has been defenestrated publically, there won't be a second chance. Expect conditions in Iraqi prisons to be improved vastly.

I complained and am still complaining about the report because you took four words from it and(I wish I could think of a better term for this, I hate this one) spun them to suit your opinion."A lack of leadership" does appear in the report by Gen. Aguba and it is the title of an article above the report in the link. In the report it refers to a lack of leadership among junior officers and non-comissioned officers in prisons in Iraq. The report also suggests that the problem began at that level and never really reached higher.

I can certainly understand why Meyers did what he did. If I were in his position and if I thought delaying the release of the story and the pictures would protect US soldiers and citizens in Iraq, I might have done the same thing. Censorship be damned, these are lives not ideals or candidates the man tried to protect and he knew the story would come out anyway. Slap him around for that if you will. Did he tell Rumsfeld or Bush? I don't know. If he had isn't it possible that they might hurry to release these things to try to avoid the appearance of a cover-up and get ahead of the media reporting this like it was a dirty secret? That would seem to be the last thing Meyers wanted.

Now Rumsfeld, he's a creepy guy. I don't think anyone would deny that. But the report and the photos or the television show are seperate things. Asking when he saw them is basically irrelevent. Having not seen any one of them or all of them in no way means he was ingnorant of or ignoring the situation. He did testify that he had been given a detailed briefing on the report, if you know what is in the report, you don't really need the pictures or CBS. When did he tell Bush? It appears he didn't.

Bush, I don't like Bush much. I think his bible-thumping domestic agenda is wrong.Besides his well evangelism, for lack of a better word, Bush has another problem, he ssems to delegate too much and trust those around him completely. This may have taught him a much needed lesson about that. When did he know about the abuse or the pictures? Again, I don't know. But knowing about the situation and knowing about the photos are different things. Should Rumsfeld have reported the situation to Bush as soon as he was aware of it? Sure. Rumsfeld is going to pay for that and soon, I think.

I complained and am still complaining about the report because you took four words from it and(I wish I could think of a better term for this, I hate this one) spun them to suit your opinion."A lack of leadership" does appear in the report by Gen. Aguba and it is the title of an article above the report in the link. In the report it refers to a lack of leadership among junior officers and non-comissioned officers in prisons in Iraq. The report also suggests that the problem began at that level and never really reached higher.

I can certainly understand why Meyers did what he did. If I were in his position and if I thought delaying the release of the story and the pictures would protect US soldiers and citizens in Iraq, I might have done the same thing. Censorship be damned, these are lives not ideals or candidates the man tried to protect and he knew the story would come out anyway. Slap him around for that if you will. Did he tell Rumsfeld or Bush? I don't know. If he had isn't it possible that they might hurry to release these things to try to avoid the appearance of a cover-up and get ahead of the media reporting this like it was a dirty secret? That would seem to be the last thing Meyers wanted.

Now Rumsfeld, he's a creepy guy. I don't think anyone would deny that. But the report and the photos or the television show are seperate things. Asking when he saw them is basically irrelevent. Having not seen any one of them or all of them in no way means he was ingnorant of or ignoring the situation. He did testify that he had been given a detailed briefing on the report, if you know what is in the report, you don't really need the pictures or CBS. When did he tell Bush? It appears he didn't.

Bush, I don't like Bush much. I think his bible-thumping domestic agenda is wrong.Besides his well evangelism, for lack of a better word, Bush has another problem, he ssems to delegate too much and trust those around him completely. This may have taught him a much needed lesson about that. When did he know about the abuse or the pictures? Again, I don't know. But knowing about the situation and knowing about the photos are different things. Should Rumsfeld have reported the situation to Bush as soon as he was aware of it? Sure. Rumsfeld is going to pay for that and soon, I think.



Hmmm - you know - people ARE allowed to use the same phrase for more than one thing. The fact that he used to define failures at the unit level have nothing to do with what I am pointing out - failures to address this properly at the highest level, not to mention a supposed scenario of non-communication that either is BS or indicitive of gross incompetence.

But you do a nice job of apologizing for the people in charge who dropped the ball on this one. But then again - at least in that same vein you agree that if Myers didn't tell Rummy, or Rummy didn't tell Bush - then they should be slapped around for it.

Isn't that what I'm doing here? They are leaders. They failed to do what we expect of them. Hence the use of the term "Failure of leadership". I NEVER attempted to tie them directly down to the abuse per se. You will not find any one statemtn by me that even suggested that. The whole initial post was about the failure to properly handle the situation and to work together as a team.

Aren't those the two things that you expect people at that level to be able to do?


But - to play along with your side-issue - why didn't his report go higher than the unit commander at Abu Ghraib?

because, as he noted, he was not tasked with investigating anything else. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/taguba.transcript/index.html) He never looked further back up the chain of command because that was not part of the defined scope of his investigation.

Again, my task was limited to the allegations of detainee abuse involving M.P. personnel and the policies, procedures and command climate of the 800th M.P. Brigade.


Remember, only soldiers from one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, have been accused of this abuse. I would be suprised if anyone above the rank of Captain is court-martialed because of these abuses. I strongly believe that these incidents were done by only this unit and these were isolated and do not reflect the way most EPWs/detainees/prisoners are treated in US/UK hands.

Actually, there are currently over 20 ongoin investigations into prisoner treatment at various bases in the Middle East. Baghram in Afghanistan just changed policies after the beating deaths of two inmate. And, in case you didn't notice above - that report only dealt with that one unit because that is all Taguba was tasked to investigate. He also stated:

However, during the course of my team's investigation, we gathered evidence pertaining to the involvement of several military intelligence personnel or contractors assigned to the 205th M.I. Brigade and the alleged detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib.

As stated in the findings of the investigation, we recommended that a separate investigation be initiated under the provisions of procedure 15, Army regulation 381-10, concerning possible improper interrogation practices in this case.


Clearly he realized that there was more depth to this issue than just the 800th Batallion given his recommendations.

As a good soldier though, he investigated onlywhat he was told to.

-Z-

Hmm... using the exact words in the report might persuade someone who didn't read it to conclude that the report is in line with your own view of these events, right? Did you not realise this beforehand? You ARE allowed to use any words you choose and I AM allowed to point out that they are misleading. The facxt that you use the exact words gives the impression of you and Taguba agreeing.

I didn't apologise for anything. I don't think anyone, other than Rumsfeld, dropped the ball. Meyers acted the way he should have. Bush perhaps should have admonished or maybe dismissed Rumsfeld, but I think that is the extent of his wrongdoing, here.

Yes, you are slapping them around. But, as I see it, you are slapping wildly at everything in sight.

Taguba or another my be asked to investigate further up the chain of command. There is no imformation to suggest that responsibility goes any higher than Taguba reported, but don't let a little thing like proof stop you.

Wow Deeloleo... you just can't get over the fact that I used a phrase also used in that report can you?

It MUST have been nefariously planned to twist it somehow! Was the report called "The failure of leadership" report? No. Did I EVER bring up the contents of that report in my initial thread? No. Was I only talking about the mishandling of that report? YES!

So which one of us is trying to twist things here?

Frankly - I don't give a damn if somebody who can't be bothered to keep up with current events jumps to incorrect conclusions. I'm not trying to educate idiots. I'm just making my points based on what I know and what I believe.

Incidentally... if this mystery person you think I am trying to confuse hasn't read the report.... how would they know that the phrase was in there? How would they connect in any way my initial post to the actual contents of the report? Please point to where I claimed that the failure I was discussing was documented anywhere in the report?

You really are stretching things to try and attack me instead of the subject.

NEWSFLASH: "failure of leadership" is a commonly used term relating to military matters.
It was used in the report.
It was used by John Kerry regarding the mishandling of this issue.
It has been used in statements and versions by Rumsfeld, Myers, and Taguba. during the committee hearings, Leadership was brought up by damn near everybody that spoke including senator Hunter, General Shoomaker who referred to a "leadership void" and "inadequate leadership", and Representative Evans who used the term "leadership failure",

Go back to the transcript. Search for the word "leadership". Enjoy yourself.



Were they all trying to twist that phrase as well?



As to my "slapping wildely at everybody" I think I was pretty direct. I looked at the supposed interplay between Myers and Rumsfeld in particular. Brought up GW only to show how the info still didn’t seem to warrant any discussion by Rummy top prove the point.

Did I attack Bush for not knowing? nope. And you know he's my favorite target.

I actually was quite specific in who's explanations stunk. Myers. Rumsfeld. With a side of Bremmer thrown in (he does also report directly to GW you know...)



You also are being specific. You have, for the most part ignored discussing the issues I wanted to discuss, and focused on attacking me. That is a piss-poor debating tactic.


Taguba or another my be asked to investigate further up the chain of command. There is no imformation to suggest that responsibility goes any higher than Taguba reported, but don't let a little thing like proof stop you.

You just don't get it do you? You can't get past the contents of the report. You can't just look at what I was discussing.. the HANDLING OF IT.

*sigh*

Oh well.


But as to your further little side-swipe, Once again I never stated that things went further up the chain of command. I only stated that it hadn't been investigated to that person who made the statement of fact that it only related to ONE unit when the recommendations were to investigate further as the findings indicated that the initial scope was too limited.



But don't let my pointing out facts stop you from trying to hint that I was doing otherwise.


-Z-

I AM allowed to point out that they are misleading. The facxt that you use the exact words gives the impression of you and Taguba agreeing.

...And one could argue that is your spin

I don't think anyone, other than Rumsfeld, dropped the ball.

I agree Rumsfeld dropped the ball, but lets be honest.. the buck stops with the commander and chief.

Yes, you are slapping them around. But, as I see it, you are slapping wildly at everything in sight.

Maybe because there are some serious problems with the way things are being done or rather not being done. I don't think it's unwarranted.

There is no imformation to suggest that responsibility goes any higher than Taguba reported.

There is certainly nothing that we have seen thus far to say it doesn't either.

You must have failed to see any headlines that quoted the words "Failure of leadership" and failed to quote any other portion of Taguba's report. I didn't. Those are the only words from the report that most people know. Kerry and others used that too, they have no agenda or reason to try to make Bush appear at fault, do they? A nefarious attempt, I didn't mean to say that. An oppurtunistic and misleading use of a quote, I think so. I didn't attack you but the words you used.

As to the use of the word leadership in the Senate hearings, those aren't biased or partisan at all, right?

For your "slapping wildly at everything in sight", I read you original post before your edit, which cleared up your postion rather well. I have been using my view of the post pre-edit as my reference.That presented a view that was leading me to respond the way I have.

It's not the fact, yes fact, that the information was handled poorly that I take issue with. It is where you placed the blame and the words you used to do it. Rumsfeld, surely at fault, in my opinion. Meyers, acted entirely appropiately, I think.As far as I can tell, Bush, was underinformed and if anything guilty of trustinng his subordinates, namely Rumsfeld, to inform him of the situation. These are all opinions, yours and mine. Like, I've said numerous times, I don't know the facts.

You didn't outright say that responisbility for the abuse rose above tose directly responsible. You did, however, seem to hint at it. Don't let my being an incureable smart-ass become the discussion.