Posted on 05/19/2004 8:24:58 PM PDT by Jean S
How can you tell that the national security experts who are the unnamed sources for journalist Seymour Hersh’s latest New Yorker exposé of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal are tough-minded, no-nonsense insiders?
They say “shit” a lot.
“This shit has been brewing for months,” a Pentagon consultant tells Hersh, creating a particularly unpalatable image of the growing prison abuse investigation.
“He goes into it not knowing shit,” says a former intelligence official, referring to Gen. Antonio Taguba’s state of mind as he began an investigation of the abuse.
“When the shit hits the fan, as it did on 9-11, how do you push the pedal?” the defense consultant asks, suggesting that it is exceedingly difficult to find the appropriate levels of force and intimidation in terrorist interrogations.
And, finally, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone,” says a senior CIA official of the congressional testimony of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone.
Clearly, if Hersh’s reporting is correct, the Bush administration is in deep shit.
Of course, there are serious doubts about the accuracy of some of Hersh’s information.
And what has not been discussed much lately is the fact that many people will read Hersh’s descriptions of the actions taken by Rumsfeld and his deputies and say, “Yes!!!”
As Hersh tells the story, the secretary of defense was “apoplectic” after U.S. forces blew a chance to kill Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar because a military lawyer wouldn’t approve the strike.
“Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness,” Hersh writes.
To which many people might say: It’s about time. That’s precisely the reaction a secretary of defense should have.
And Rumsfeld didn’t just rant. According to Hersh, he created a new, top-secret program to get around legal roadblocks in high-importance terrorism cases.
The program gave elite U.S. forces great freedom in nabbing terrorists. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want,’” one former intelligence official told Hersh.
To which many people might say: Good.
And the plan worked. “In mid-2003, the special-access program was regarded in the Pentagon as one of the success stories of the war on terror,” Hersh writes.
“It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat,” the former intelligence official told Hersh. “If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States — and do so without visibility.”
Although Hersh writes that some of the program’s methods were “troubling,” still many people might say of the program: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
All that applied to the war against al Qaeda.
Hersh reports that later, in Iraq, Rumsfeld became increasingly alarmed at the growing level of violence from the post-Saddam insurgency.
After the August bombings of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, and then the United Nations headquarters, top Pentagon officials began to rethink their approach to the insurgents.
To which many people might say: Good idea.
The problem, Hersh writes, was a shortage of usable intelligence.
“Human intelligence is poor or lacking ... due to the dearth of competence and expertise,” says a classified military report quoted by Hersh. “The intelligence effort is not coordinated since either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely manner.”
So the Pentagon decided, in Hersh’s words, “to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents.”
And guess what: It worked.
“We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told Hersh, “and the intelligence is flowing. ... We’re getting good stuff.”
Informed of that, readers who have been discouraged by the administration’s unsteady — some would say disastrous — handling of the insurgency in Fallujah most likely began to feel some renewed confidence in the Iraqi effort.
Hersh writes that the administration then took the program too far, which led to the Abu Ghraib abuses.
But it’s not at all clear from his report that the prison abuses actually stemmed from the secret program.
And one of the article’s sources “made it clear” to Hersh “that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or [Joint Chiefs chairman] General Myers knew that atrocities were committed.”
So in light of some of the hyperventilation that has surrounded the release of Hersh’s article, it might be good to remember this: The abuses, whatever their origin, were discovered and investigated and are now being prosecuted.
The president himself apologized for them.
And the secret interrogation program, whether or not it had any connection to Abu Ghraib, nevertheless produced real results and probably saved American and Iraq lives.
It was a good idea.
No shit.
| Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com |
NOt at all...and there is NOTHING in any of my posts that would suggest that. You toss around the word atrocity as if it was water. What happened at Abu Ghraib is unfortunate and atypical. The soldiers responsible are being dealt with. There was not one atrocity there. An atrocity would be oh how about the MURDER of a mother and her four children by gangsters in the Gaza or how about the random beheading of anyone captured by thugs or even the burning ,mutilation, and public display of four soldiers ? You have NO sense of proportion. Idealism through blinders is only useful in physics lab
You don't know who you're talking to...and you don't have your facts straight.
The incidents at Abu Ghraib are not isolated, there were murders, and much of what was done constitute atrocities. The murders perpetrated by Arabs in Gaza and elsewhere are also atrocities.
The point of my last post was that you seem to have no concern that we might be sinking to their level - and doing so without public discussion or awareness. There are arguments - good ones - for using extreme torture in certain situations. There are also very, very good arguments for not using torture at all outside of those situations. You seem unaware and unconcerned with the subtleties.
Oh I have my facts very straight. And you don't know who you are talking to either...Read the reports and statements and even the loatest information that is breaking. These are not atrocities. A few moron out of control prison guards decided to reek havoc with NO ORDERS and are now paying the price. I am not concerned about sinking to their level because good and decent soldiers brought this to the attention of their superiors and the approriate actions are now taking place. You on the other hand seem to be nearly hystericla over it. With your tag name being liberlarry perhaps that tells me ALL I need to know
Go to the dictionary. The acts are atrocities.
But perhaps you mean they are not administration-ordered atrocities. That is still in question. Either intelligence ordered torture to be administered on too wide a scale without proper controls OR Karpinski simply didn't do her job and allowed a few morons to amuse themselves in horrific ways. We'll see.
That so many prisoners have suddenly been released from Abu Ghraib says that Barbara Fast's policy of extremely slow release (as alleged by Karpinski in Taguba) was, at the very least, ill-advised.
It's also not at all clear how wide-spread the abuses were. The Red Cross says very wide-spread.
atrocity according to all dictionaries that I have is an act that exceeds ALL moral bounds, heinous, extreme....Yeah the stuff that happened wasn't a good thing ( and not even useful) but they were most defintely an atrocity. The way Saddam tortued people counts as atrocity. SO again you have no perspective or sense of proportion. There is no open question to any of this. The statements on record from the a**hole Graner indicate a brutal stupid prison guard mentallity. He exceeded his orders and acted on his own and got others to help him. Don't site the Red Cross to me. They are ridden with folks who would just as soon see the US occupied by folks who would kill all of us. They are (and always have been) a useless organization when it comes to international affairs. They are only mariginally useful during floods
You're one of the most self-serving people I've ever encountered.
NOw that is one of your least interesting responses. You really must be a liberal if that is what you devolve to...YOU are the one who said to look atrocity up in the dictionary and now you don't like the definition...not my fault. All the posts from you have said it is an atrocity and now that you find that it isn 't you call me self serving. You at least provide amusement
atrocity according to all dictionaries that I have is an act that exceeds ALL moral bounds, heinous, extreme....Yeah the stuff that happened wasn't a good thing
If it was your son or daughter who'd been sodomized with a chemical light, forced to eat from a toilet and renounce his or her religion, held naked for long periods of time, forced to masturbate for the amusement of guards, or brought home dead as a result of being packed in ice after multiple, prolonged beatings, would you treat it as "something bad" but not exceeding "ALL moral bounds, etc"?
I don't think so.
One doesn't have to be a Stalin or Hitler or Hussein to commit atrocities. People just like you and I are capable such actions...and often are guilty of such things. All it takes is a little opportunity and a large amount of rationalization.
Graner is an out of control jerk who is a criminal. Many of the assertions as to what "happened" have yet to be proven ( which is what the courtmartials are for). If my son or daughter were fighting against US troops and for the Islamic nations of the world...I would not really care much as to what was done to them. I will say again that Islam is EVIL started out EVIL has throughout its history been EVIL and as long as it remains commited to the Koran will contie to be EVIL. Are these atrocities? NO but pulling apart bodies and burning them to a crisp and then hanging them from a bridge certainly is. Killing six million people because you are a psychopatic meth head certainly is. If this were not being investigated and handled by the military then I might agree with you but it is being investigated and handled in the appropriate way. That is why it is not an atrocity
So mutilating dead bodies is more heinous than torturing live ones? Based on this alone I'd say your ideas of morality are worse than worthless - are EVIL.
If my son or daughter were fighting against US troops and for the Islamic nations of the world...I would not really care much as to what was done to them
And if they were fighting for the U.S., were captured, and subjected to this treatment while prisoners? How would you feel then? Would you still be willing to say they were victims of over-sexed, out-of-control frat boys?
Killing six million people because you are a psychopatic meth head certainly is
Hitler didn't become a meth-head until he was faced with certain defeat - long after he decided to kill the six million. He made that decision rationally - because he believed the Jews were the embodiment of pure EVIL, a belief which many Christians held for hundreds of years, and which most Muslims now hold.
I will say again that Islam is EVIL started out EVIL has throughout its history been EVIL and as long as it remains commited to the Koran will contie to be EVIL.
I don't think you realize how much of the world holds that view of us (the U.S. is the Great Satan, remember?...and the Euros agree) - especially since Bush became President. Once thinking like this takes over - and you allow your enemies to be demonized - every act becomes justifiable no matter how despicable or cruel.
I think you need some dramamine if that silly crap "revulses" you. If that is so you must live in a constant state of revulsion since there are MANY things FAR more replusive than the silly frat house tricks played on the poooor mass murderering scumbags we had in detention.
Do you fall for EVERY RATmedia stunt? Do you beieve three weeks + of scantimonious hyperventilation by the RATmedia was justified? Don't you see this hysteria was fanned to a fever pitch in order to ratchet up the attacks on our troops and thereby, hurt the President? Has it escaped you that more excitement (RAT excitement) has been generated here than in Iraq since the people there KNOW what REAL atrocities are? They are laughing at the silly Americans in a lather over little.
If true (I have no way of verifying), it's an admission of guilt by the Administration and a desire to cover up any future, heinous acts.
Sontag's piece is basically long-winded, self-flagellating, anti-American garbage (because she refuses to face honestly inherent human brutality, and the difficulties of fighting a really bad, dangerous enemy while being hampered at home by politically correct, morons like herself who refuse to admit the necessity of personal sacrifice) but it does illustrate well the dangers of allowing brutality to reign unchecked.
It's because of these dangers that I prefer a policy of telling Muslims that if they support terrorists and allow them to hide in their midst they will have to pay the price (Fallujuah flattened and all its inhabitants killed) to our present policy of unenending detentions and increasingly brutal "interrogation" (torture). We will be hated - perhaps even more than now - but our actions will be open and upfront and we will be treating our enemies honestly - as enemies - and not dishonestly as "innocent" civilians...which will force them to be honest as well.
How dare you accuse liberal larry of not having a sense of humor? That's an atrocity!
You belong in an institution for the criminally self-righteous...
Do you fall for EVERY RATmedia stunt? Do you beieve three weeks + of scantimonious hyperventilation by the RATmedia was justified? Don't you see this hysteria was fanned to a fever pitch in order to ratchet up the attacks on our troops and thereby, hurt the President?
...And the criminally foolish
The media makes its living on scandal and hysteria and political controversy...because that's what people want. That's the way it is and always has been - and that's especially true in a free society (Washington himself complained about it).
Has it escaped you that more excitement (RAT excitement) has been generated here than in Iraq since the people there KNOW what REAL atrocities are?
You're full of crap.
These incidents have enormously damaged our reputation world-wide, and especially in the Arab world. Sure, Saddam was worse...but he was their own home-grown monster, and never claimed to be bringing decency and democracy to the country.
I know you. You specialize in one-liners - perhaps because that's the limit of your mentality?
Actually, it only requires one line to mock you!
Mocking is easy - and cowardly. Reasoned refutation requires facts and brains.
I note you also specialize in the use of ! - a sure sign of deficient wit.
Could not form your thoughts in a single post, could you, Mr. hypersensitive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be sure and read post #32. I misaddressed it to myself. It should have gone to you.
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.