Posted on 05/09/2004 11:33:46 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. But any resignation would only whet their appetite to cut and run. The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on.
Because today's column will generate apoplectic e-mail, a word about contrarian opinion: Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."
One Bush cabinet member paid attention. Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals.
Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.
In last week's apology before the Senate, Rumsfeld assumed ultimate responsibility, as J.F.K. did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Pentagon chief failed to foresee and warn the president of the danger lurking in the Army's public announcement in January of its criminal investigation into prisoner abuse. He failed to put the nation's reputation ahead of the regulation prohibiting "command influence" in criminal investigations, which protects the accused in courts-martial.
The secretary testified that he was, incredibly, the last to see the humiliating photos that turned a damning army critique by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba into a media firestorm. Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff.
But then Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota rudely badgered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, repeatedly hurling the word "suppression" at him. General Myers had been trying to save the lives of troops by persuading CBS to delay its broadcast of pictures that would inflame resistance. Rumsfeld quieted the sound-bite-hungry politician by reminding him that requests to delay life-threatening reports were part of long military-media tradition.
This was scandal with no cover-up; the wheels of investigation and prosecution were grinding, with public exposure certain. Second only to the failure to prevent torture was the Pentagon's failure to be first to break the bad news: the Taguba report should have been released at a Rumsfeld press conference months ago.
Now every suspect ever held in any U.S. facility will claim to have been tortured and demand recompense. Videos real and fake will stream across the world's screens, and propagandists abroad will join defeatists here in calling American prisons a "gulag," gleefully equating Bush not just with Saddam but with Stalin.
Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to "name, rank, serial number," as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?
The United States shows the world its values by investigating and prosecuting wrongdoers high and low. It is not in our political value system to scapegoat a good man for the depraved acts of others. Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war.
This secretary of defense, who has the strong support of the president, is both effective and symbolic. If he were to quit under political fire, pressure would mount for America to quit under insurgent fire. Hang in there, Rummy! You have a duty to serve in our "long, hard slog."
Always, when it comes to popping the idol balloons(Imus) of such people as Leadpenny.
What? Why does Myers need authorization to pick up the phone and ask a news organization to hold broadcasting inflammatory images that he felt put our troops in harms way? That has always been acceptable.
Besides, Myers said flat out at Friday's hearing (maybe Imus didn't watch and since you don't indicate Mik gave a logical and fact based answer like I, a lowly housewife know the answer to, I'll guess he did not pick up this obvious factoid) he had a working relationship with CBS and other media and HE was concerned about the impact the photos would have. He simply asked them to hold off on airing the pictures. He did not attempt to coerce them or try to suppress a thing.
Why is this not self-evident?
Exactly.
I wish you'd reconsider then. The only reason to have trouble with it or be concerned with General Myers is if the military/government was not already addressing the problem and the pictures were needed to push it out into the open, or Myers was trying to cover something up.
Since none of that is true and the only thing accomplished by the publication of these images is to hype a story that tarnishes our troops and the attempt is being made to also bring down this administration over it, I, for one, have zero trouble with what Myers did and I am plenty troubled by the decision of CBS and other media outlets.
I'll second that!
LOL
"Ain't it cool"!
LOL!
Amazing isn't it. The idiocy of the left and liberal media never ceases to amaze me.
Who's paying for three lawyers? Now there is a good question.
I remembered someone saying this and actually hunted up your post to make these comments:
The three lawyers I'll guess you saw this morning were also just on Keith Olberman's show on MSNBC (one very heavy lady?, two men, one-McGuire-with some type of accent?).
They said they had not spoken with "their client" yet, then proceeded to give "their understanding" of the why's and wherefore's of her being ordered to take and participate in these pictures and said it was at the behest of the CIA and intelligence (the same story the others involved in the pictures are claiming).
The heavy woman even added that she's learned (Keith did not ask her HOW, since she said it wasn't from her client) that the pictures were also used to boost morale amongst the troops! That was a new one on me.
Keith then said Jim Mik has learned that a lot of the video shows consensual sex between England and Grainer (sp?). The heavy woman said she failed to see how that was relevent to why her client was ordered to deal with Iraqi prisoners in the manner she was. (I'm just reporting what was said. Naturally, I can think of plenty).
Then Olberman brought in a fourth woman. A very young snot who says she's offering her services on the legal team because she has taken umbrage at how young, 21 year old England was being made a scapegoat.
All very interesting (especially the consensual sex videos, IMO. Shows a certain propensity and kinkiness all by itself) and I didn't know where else to post this information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.