Rummy's head off the platter
Stableness
14-05-2004, 18:54
ABC News three page news story (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/prisoner_abuse_Sivits_testimony_040514-3.html). Here's an excerpt:
...Sivits said the chain of command was unaware of the alleged abuse, which first surfaced in January following a tip from another guard in January. When asked during his testimony whether the abuse would have happened in the presence of his superiors, Sivits said, "Hell no … Our command would have slammed us."...
Well, any thoughts? Check into it and look at the documented (in pdf format) confession Sivits signed in January. I know what some of you must be thinking, "cover-up by Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-Enron-war for oil administration :!:
Stableness
15-05-2004, 00:45
Hmmm...quite interesting that no one has an opinion on this one that they're willing to share. Why not? Lack of interest? Afraid to let some facts get into the way of preformed and inflexible stance? :P
Incertonia
15-05-2004, 01:34
Hmmm...quite interesting that no one has an opinion on this one that they're willing to share. Why not? Lack of interest? Afraid to let some facts get into the way of preformed and inflexible stance? :PWell, does he talk about the involvement of Military Intelligence personnel in his statement? Because if he doesn't, then he's contradicting photographic evidence--MSNBC.com ran a story with photos yesterday that dealt with the fact that the abuse involved far more than these 7 people.
Incertonia
15-05-2004, 01:39
Okay--I read the story, and not only does he not mention the presence of Military Intelligence Personnel, the story goes to great lengths to point out that his story might well be self-serving because he's getting a deal to testify against the others.
Stableness
15-05-2004, 02:02
Okay--I read the story, and not only does he not mention the presence of Military Intelligence Personnel, the story goes to great lengths to point out that his story might well be self-serving because he's getting a deal to testify against the others.
Did you see the date of the document?
Incertonia
15-05-2004, 02:18
Yeah, January 14--the time period when the investigation got going. So? He got busted and was the first to roll.
Stableness
15-05-2004, 14:19
Yeah, January 14--the time period when the investigation got going. So? He got busted and was the first to roll.
Or to tell the damn truth. It's all a matter of perspective and belief but I think it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere - not for the next 4 and 3/4 years at least :wink:
Kryozerkia
15-05-2004, 14:56
Yeah, January 14--the time period when the investigation got going. So? He got busted and was the first to roll.
Or to tell the damn truth. It's all a matter of perspective and belief but I think it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere - not for the next 4 and 3/4 years at least :wink:
Depends on who wins the November election.
Stableness
15-05-2004, 15:44
Yeah, January 14--the time period when the investigation got going. So? He got busted and was the first to roll.
Or to tell the damn truth. It's all a matter of perspective and belief but I think it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere - not for the next 4 and 3/4 years at least :wink:
Depends on who wins the November election.
That was my nuanced way of saying that Bush was going to serve another four. After all, the Supreme Court still has five justices that will "select" him :P :lol:
Kryozerkia
15-05-2004, 15:54
Yeah, January 14--the time period when the investigation got going. So? He got busted and was the first to roll.
Or to tell the damn truth. It's all a matter of perspective and belief but I think it's safe to say Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere - not for the next 4 and 3/4 years at least :wink:
Depends on who wins the November election.
That was my nuanced way of saying that Bush was going to serve another four. After all, the Supreme Court still has five justices that will "select" him :P :lol:
That's "Democracy" for you...