Posted on 05/18/2004 10:33:47 AM PDT by AntiGuv
The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration.
The White House is about to get hit by the biggest tsunami since the Iran-Contra affair, maybe since Watergate. President George W. Bush is trapped inside the compound, immobilized by his own stay-the-course campaign strategy. Can he escape the massive tidal waves? Maybe. But at this point, it's not clear how.
If today's investigative shockers—Seymour Hersh's latest article in The New Yorker and a three-part piece in Newsweek—are true, it's hard to avoid concluding that responsibility for the Abu Ghraib atrocities goes straight to the top, both in the Pentagon and the White House, and that varying degrees of blame can be ascribed to officials up and down the chain of command.
.....cut.....
Read together, the magazine articles spell out an elaborate, all-inclusive chain of command in this scandal. Bush knew about it. Rumsfeld ordered it. His undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Steven Cambone, administered it. Cambone's deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, instructed Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been executing the program involving al-Qaida suspects at Guantanamo, to go do the same at Abu Ghraib. Miller told Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the 800th Military Brigade, that the prison would now be dedicated to gathering intelligence. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, also seems to have had a hand in this sequence, as did William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, learned about the improper interrogations—from the International Committee of the Red Cross, if not from anyone else—but said or did nothing about it for two months, until it was clear that photographs were coming out. Meanwhile, those involved in the interrogations included officers from military intelligence, the CIA, and private contractors, as well as the mysterious figures from the Pentagon's secret operation.
That's a lot more people than the seven low-grade soldiers and reservists currently facing courts-martial.
So, what happens next?
.....cut.....
The knives are out all over Washington—lots of knives, unsheathed and sharpened in many different backroom parlors, for many motives and many throats. In short, this story is not going away.
What is Bush to do? There's not much he can do. Many, including loyal Republicans worried about the election, are urging him to fire Rumsfeld. But that move probably wouldn't stop the investigations. In fact, the confirmation hearings for Rummy's replacement would serve as yet another forum for all the questions—about Abu Ghraib, the war in Iraq, and military policy generally—that the administration is trying to stave off. More than that, Bush has said repeatedly that he won't get rid of Rumsfeld. If he did, especially if he did so under political pressure, he would undermine his most appealing campaign slogan—that he stays the course, doesn't buckle, says what he means and does what he says.
If lesser officials are sacrificed—Cambone, Feith, and so forth—there is no guarantee that they will go gently, especially if they face possible criminal charges. The same, by the way, is true of Rumsfeld himself, a savvy survivor who can be expected to take some interesting memos with him—for possible widespread circulation—if he were forced to leave the building.
Much is at stake here—budgets, bailiwicks, careers, reputations, re-elections, to say nothing of national security and the future of Iraq. Get ready for a bumpy ride.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
no one cares about this story - except the media.
The title should be "LIBERAL WISHFUL THINKING".
The Hearst story has been out since Sunday and was overwhelmed by the murder of Berg and the WMD find in Iraq. So I guess they are pinning their hopes on Newsweek, hardly an unbiased source.
If this is the worse the left will do to Bush between now and Nov. then I say let them say what they want because people are over the shock of those photos, and this won't hurt Bush too bad in terms of votes(it's crazy to blaim Bush and Rummy at all).
You got it. I don't accept it as a scandal.
Can't believe so many saying the poor prisoners
were tortured or abused. Hey, they are POW's,
do they expect to be treated??D
I am in NY, surrounded by Dem co-workers - they don't care about this story. Sure, its "humiliating" and the "soldiers shouldn't have behaved that way", etc. But even they don't buy this "torture" and "atrocity" stuff.
But I do have good news... I just saved a lot of money by switching to Geico!
To put this another way, the symbolic "knives out all over Washington" are not what concern us, but the very real knives that the enemy is using to saw people's heads off.
What if they had been American POWs? POWs should be treated according to the Geneva convention, we expect our soldiers to be treated this way, as we are expected to treat others. We are the USA, we are the liberators, remember? We are supposed to be better than this. I think it shows gross negligence that not only were these abuses allowed to happen (I do NOT think they were ordered), but that hundreds of photos were taken and circulated. Someone needs to and will be held accountable.
Looks like things might be heating up in this department, a recent UPI release:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040518-064124-9605r
This is beginning to appear not be an entirely partisan issue -- at least I would argue it warrants closer inspection; and perhpas a thought out resolution. Its not just Demos involved, although no doubt they are using it as a knob on a stove to turn up the heat.
The one argument that keeps coming ack to me on this is that many of the Iraqi's subjected to abuse, the percentage is unknown, but perhaps 50% or so, just may have been innocent citizen Iraqis (surely not all Iraqis are insurgents, so this question needs to be asked).
This to me seems to be the crux of it. Sure, no one would have a problem with "behind closed door" interrogaton of insurgents, suspected insurgents, and certainly terrorist, etc., but if the ICRC's reports (upcoming Newsweek, Hersh, et al) have a grain of truth to them, then they deserve closer inspection.
Historically Presidents have done well with the public when they "take matters" into their own hands, admit perhaps mistakes were made, as Bush has done, but, this story, with now the involvement of the military, CIA, etc., doesn't seem to winding down, indeed, it appears to gaining some momentun.
What to do?
Threr is nothing in this story that would cause me to vote for JF'nK
What to do is what we're already doing: identifying and punishing those responsible, putting an end to their military careers. Contrast this with the reaction of Dar-al-Islam to the Berg beheading: "concern" from a scattering of enlightened places, but the usual fist-pumping, cheering throngs elsewhere.
This is the difference between a healthy culture and a sick culture. This is why it's total war.
I think we should "censure and move on."
Hey, there's an idea for a political movement in there somewhere.
Blazing --
Yes, you are right, that proceedings are moving forward to punish those responsible -- but the jest of the article suggests that these 19 year old privates weren't the masterminds behind these techniques.
The Berg incidence does demonstrate that terrorist can be ruthless, etc., that doesn't seem to be the argument here - fodder for the cannon perhaps.
The reason I posted the article is because this whole affair is not taking on the color of a partisan attack, sure, the Demos are jumping all over this one, but several republican senators and others are voicing a concern.
Perhaps you are right Blazing, that the best approach is to continue to punish those that are found guilty, and leave it at that. However, I hardly doubt that many would agree that the majority of the 26 million Iraqi's are "sick"; and perhaps you didn't mean to imply that. The majority of Iraqi's are happy that the US is there, that we have elminiated Saddam, and so we should see that as a positive development in all of this.
My only point was, that if those responsible (command enviornment) goes higher than the pfc's involved; that perhaps this affair may grow, and not go away anytime soon -- something that could become problematic at this stage in the election year.
Newsweek is coming out this week (or next?) with a scathing report that not only supports Hersh's New Yorker article, but goes even further. Hence, this whole affair "appears" to being growing much beyond the pfc's now being court martialed. Keep in mind too, that it is generally being reported that many of the Iraqi prisoners were innocent civilians (yes,there are some that are innocent) and subjected to this elevated form of hazing --
So, my point being, if this affair takes on new life, what would be the best thing for Bush, running as an incumbent President, to do? I only presented the argument that historically Presidents move these issues front and center, and historically this has resulted in an increase in their popularity or approval ratings, something that Bush may benefit from and turn the polls around a bit.
Just a thought or two, I certainly have no answers.
Bush probably thought his last Treasury Secretary was a principled man of conviction when he hired him. Actually why would Bush hire an unprincipled man with no convictions? What would that say about Bush's skills as a personnel manager? It's natural to take down others if you're going to be made the scapegoat. It has nothing to do with principles and convictions.
I just think if we're going to say we're abiding by the GC, we should. The problem is that we said we would. We should have just said, "Look we have a bunch of a$$holes trying to slice our heads off running around Iraq. If we catch them, we'll do bad things to them. If you don't like it, vote us out or try to use your military to push us out. Now, leave us alone. We have Islamists to slaughter and torture."
The left (politicians and media) approved of the Iraq invasion, however, at this election time; the only thing they have to unseat Bush is to shoot holes in his Iraq war. This Abu Ghraib scandal is a god sent. It has pictures, and it has porn. Firing of Rumsfeld and George Tenet can be a swift move by Bush to restore control and assure the world of his control of the situation. The longer he waits to extract a severe and proportionate punishment on the responsible leaders who allowed such behaviors the harder time he will have in convincing the public and the world that he is a fair/decisive leader. Restoring the honor of the American servicemen, and the American image is at stake.
It's interesting that after months and months of Bremer and Powell telling the CF that many of the prisoners we rounded up should be released, the Pentagon orders it when these photos and videos pop up. You're supposed to do the right thing when no one is watching-- not when you're forced to kicking and screaming. They should have just said they wanted to hold these prisoners for good reasons and ignored Bremer and Powell.
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.