Bush Privately Chides Rumsfeld

[adios]

How long will it be before Bush cuts this albatross from around his neck and shows Rumsfeld the door. I would think very soon to lessen the political damage. Not saying that lessening political damage is an appropriate reason, just pointing out the seeming reality of the situation. If this weren't an election year Rumsfeld would be gone I would think. IMO Rumsfeld doesn't deserve Bush's loyalty over this but could be convinced otherwise and I believe it's probably more damaging politically to stay with this guy.

Bush Privately Chides Rumsfeld (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040506/ts_washpost/a5733_2004may5&e=2)

Bush Privately Chides Rumsfeld

1 hour, 31 minutes ago Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Robin Wright and Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush (news - web sites) privately admonished Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday, a senior White House official said, as other U.S. officials blamed the Pentagon (news - web sites) for failing to act on repeated recommendations to improve conditions for thousands of Iraqi detainees and release those not charged with crimes.


Bush is "not satisfied" and "not happy" with the way Rumsfeld informed him about the investigation into abuses by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison or the quantity of information Rumsfeld provided, the senior White House official said.


The president was particularly disturbed at having had to learn from news reports this week about the scope of misconduct documented in an Army investigative report completed in March, according to the official, who refused to be named so he could speak more candidly.


Other U.S. officials said Rumsfeld and the Pentagon resisted appeals in recent months from the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority to deal with problems relating to detainees. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urged action in several White House meetings that included Rumsfeld, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.


"It's something Powell has raised repeatedly -- to release as many detainees as possible -- and, second, to ensure that those in custody are properly cared for and treated," said a senior State Department official familiar with the discussions.


But the Pentagon repeatedly failed to act on both requests, said U.S. officials, who are privately furious over a human rights disaster that they believe might have been averted if military officials had acted on their requests.


Defense officials sharply disputed suggestions that Rumsfeld or other senior Pentagon authorities turned a deaf ear to the appeals and ignored festering problems at U.S.-run detention centers. They said there were no major differences between the departments of State and Defense over the handling of detainees in Iraq (news - web sites), saying top administration officials had generally agreed on the need to reduce the number of prisoners in U.S. military custody and ensure proper management of detention facilities.


"It would be unfair to Secretary Powell to portray the discussions among [national security] principals about this issue in the way some people seem to be trying to portray them," said Lawrence T. DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. "There was a lot of important activity and interest taken by the principals, including Rumsfeld, to make sure we were doing all that we could."


Rumsfeld also came in for fresh criticism yesterday on Capitol Hill, where Republicans joined Democrats in expressing anger about not having been informed about the details of the prison investigation. Rumsfeld is to appear at a Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) hearing tomorrow, and some White House officials fear that a Republican lawmaker will ask him whether he is considering resigning. Some Republican aides on Capitol Hill said he might not survive until Election Day. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Rumsfeld should resign if investigators conclude the chain of responsibility reaches his office.


The defense secretary has deplored the reported abuses at Abu Ghraib prison but defended the Pentagon's response, saying military commanders acted promptly to investigate conditions there after being alerted in January about the misconduct. He also has noted that the Pentagon announced the start of the investigation in January and, in March, reported the filing of charges against six enlisted military police soldiers who served as guards.


But the nature of their offenses were not revealed until CBS's "60 Minutes II" aired photographs last week showing naked inmates piled up beside smiling soldiers and the New Yorker magazine days later detailed the findings of the Army's internal report. In the wake of widespread outrage over the misconduct, the Pentagon has moved to tighten oversight of prison operations in Iraq, accelerate release of prisoners and probe conditions at internment centers elsewhere.


State Department officials, however, have been particularly concerned about what they said was the Pentagon's reluctance to heed urgings earlier from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to improve conditions at Iraqi prisons.


"We've been pressing for more flexibility and openness to the ICRC's needs and suggestions about the detainees," said a U.S. official familiar with the legal issues involved in detentions.


U.S. officials here and former Coalition Provisional Authority officials attributed some of the problems to disarray and poor communication among different branches of the occupation structure in Iraq. But they said the Pentagon's resistance has also been a factor.


"The level of disarticulation between the military and civilian components of our occupation is extraordinary," said Larry Diamond, fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institute who served for several months as an adviser to L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and is now a critic of the U.S. occupation. "We're either serious about human rights and the Geneva Convention or we're not."


Although Bush is giving no consideration to asking to Rumsfeld to resign, the senior White House official said, the president informed Rumsfeld of his dissatisfaction during a meeting in the Oval Office yesterday morning after the two left a National Security Council meeting. Bush was particularly bothered at not having been told that the photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were in circulation, even though Pentagon officials knew that CBS had obtained them, the senior White House official said.


Asked yesterday by al-Hurra, a television station seen widely in the Arab world that is financed by the U.S. government, Bush replied: "Oh, of course I've got confidence in the secretary of defense, and I've got confidence in the commanders on the ground in Iraq."





Bush aides conceded that Rumsfeld had earlier given Bush a general sense of the investigation of Abu Ghraib during a meeting that included Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. But White House press secretary Scott McClellan said officials have not been able to pin down the exact date, except that it was after Jan. 16, when the Pentagon issued a release announcing the probe.

Much of the debate within the administration over what to do about Iraqi prisoners has roots in a long-running struggle among the departments of State, Defense and Justice to sort through prisoners at the detention facility at the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials said. The scandal involving Abu Ghraib prison has cast a fresh spotlight on the administration's general approach to the handling of war prisoners and terrorist suspects since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Concerns about prison conditions in Iraq were brought up in internal administration deliberations at the beginning of the year by Powell and Bremer, who warned of the potential political fallout, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials now say the only solution to the crisis over the treatment of Iraqi detainees is a drastic policy shift, such as surrendering all control of prisoners or sharing supervision with Iraqis or an international institution such as the ICRC.

Since it is not likely that Iraqis or the wider Islamic world will believe U.S. pledges to deal with the situation, the Bush administration needs some kind of witness or partner in administering the detention centers, U.S. officials said.

In the past, however, the ICRC had not been willing to share control of detainees with another party. So the only option may be some form of joint control with Iraqis or other unspecified forces, the officials said.

[adios]

Who would have thought that? Good front page article in the Wall Street Journal about Bush and Iraq. Very fair I thought. To me cutting Rumsfeld loose is a good move for Bush. First of all if it turns out that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was an isolated incident then Bush can state that he has zero tolerance for that crap (bring it on). If the problem turns out that it is much more wide spread than how it's being spun currently Bush to me obviously has gained politically. The message being sent to Iraqis in keeping Rumsfeld on can't be a good one methinks but again I could be convinced otherwise. This isn't the way to win the hearts and mind of Iraqis. Bush supported Rumsfeld yesterday but that move will blow up in his face if and when this problem is investigated and it turns out to be much worse than what is being reported. Again I don't think Rumsfeld deserves Bush's loyalty. Perhaps Bush is being blackmailed in a sense in that he's worried Rumsfeld will write a tell all book if he's let go /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[andyfox]

Can't let him go. It would look too bad at this stage. I think it would increase, not lessen, the political damage, now that he's said he's an important person in the administration and has done a great job.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't let him go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he can.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would increase, not lessen, the political damage

[/ QUOTE ]

He's taking a political hit no matter what. Better to cut him loose than support him.


[ QUOTE ]
now that he's said he's an important person in the administration and has done a great job.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO that was a bad move.

[andyfox]

How'd Rummy do in front of Congress today? I imagine there were fireworks galore.

[adios]

Not too good IMO. Check this story out. Looks to me like it's more than 7 US soldiers involved LOL.

More Photos, Videos in Iraq Abuse Scandal-Rumsfeld (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040507/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_video_dc_1)

More Photos, Videos in Iraq Abuse Scandal-Rumsfeld

51 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison includes more photographs and videos that are potentially worse than the photos shown around the world of smiling American soldiers next to naked Iraqi prisoners in humiliating positions, U.S. officials said on Friday.


Reuters Photo



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) hearing, said there were many more photos and videotapes that had not been published showing cruel and sadistic acts by U.S. personnel.


"I've said today that there are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact," Rumsfeld said.


"I mean I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe," he said. "And if they're sent to some news organization and taken out of the criminal prosecution


channels that they're in, that's where we'll be. And it's not a pretty picture."


The photographs published so far have shown naked Iraqi prisoners piled on top of each other. One prisoner is shown with a leash around his neck held by a female American soldier, and one has women's underwear over his head.


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, asked Rumsfeld during the hearing whether he had seen the video. Rumsfeld said he had not seen it.


"Apparently the worst is yet to come potentially in terms of disturbing events," Graham said.


From the NY Times:

Rumsfeld Offers Apology for Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
By DAVID STOUT

Published: May 7, 2004


ASHINGTON, May 7 — A chastened Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered his personal apology today for the abuses inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners by their American military jailers, saying that the wrongdoings were "fundamentally un-American" and signaling that even uglier disclosures are to come.

"I take full responsibility," Mr. Rumsfeld told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, some of whom pressed him with hostile questions. "I offer my deepest apology."

In an appearance widely seen as crucial to his prospects of remaining as Pentagon chief, Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that he was responsible for what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad because the events occurred "on my watch."

"I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "They're human beings."

The secretary said he would name a commission to look deeply into the incidents of abuse, notwithstanding the inquiries already under way, and that he would try to find a way to compensate the individual detainees who were abused.

"It's the right thing to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Mr. Rumsfeld said in response to questions that the abuses were instances of misconduct, not part of tactics meant to "soften up" detainees for questioning. But he indicated that even more instances have yet to be made public.

"Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "There are many more photographs and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this."

At one point, the secretary said, "There are a lot more pictures."

Mr. Rumsfeld praised the courage of the soldiers who came forward and told of the abuses. He said the resulting investigations, and the collective examination of conscience that underlie them, offer an opportunity for the United States to make amends.

"Watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing," Mr. Rumsfeld said in what amounted to a plea to the world. "We will strive to do our best, as imperfect as it may be," he said after declaring that he felt "the heartbreak of acknowledging the evil in our midst."

As for his own future, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I'd resign in a minute" if he concluded that he could no longer lead the Defense Department effectively.

The secretary said the acts of a few American soldiers do not represent the values and conduct of most American military men and women in Iraq. "They're truly wonderful human beings," he said.

Several panel members said they agreed. But they also took Mr. Rumsfeld to task. Senator John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, wanted to know what private contractors were in charge of questioning the prisoners and had authority over the guards.

When the secretary did not answer immediately, Mr. McCain grew exasperated.

"No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question, and it could be satisfied with a phone call," Mr. McCain said. "This is a pretty simple, straightforward question. Who was in charge of the interrogations?"

Mr. Rumsfeld did not answer directly at first. Finally, he said, "That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken is determining."

Mr. McCain was clearly not satisfied with the answers. "I think these are fundamental qusetions to this issue," he said.

At one point, Mr. Rumsfeld was interrupted for a loud, long moment by several hecklers. "Fire Rumsfeld!" they shouted before being ejected. "Fire Rumsfeld!"

Under other circumstances, Mr. Rumsfeld might have smiled and cracked a joke. Today, he sat silent and stoic as the protesters were ejected.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and one of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush administration's Iraq campaign, said, "In the Middle East and too often today, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty; it's the prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape and a dark hood on his head, wires attached to his body, afraid that he's going to be electrocuted.."

"These incidences of torture and abuse resulted in a catastrophic crisis of credibility for our nation," Mr. Kennedy said.

The secretary also expressed his regrets to members of the committee for not informing them sooner of the full extent and seriousness of the Abu Ghraib abuses.

"Let me be clear," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and the members of Congress."

Members of the committee, Republicans as well as Democrats, have expressed extreme annoyance recently over not being informed about the explosive photographs depicting abuse that included sexual humilation — a particular outrage in Arab culture.

President Bush has also expressed his deep regrets. His aides also let it be known that he had personally admonished Mr. Rumsfeld for not informing him sooner about the Abu Ghraib episode.

Mr. Bush, campaign today in Dubuque, Iowa, said, "The abhorrent pictures on our TV screens have stained our honor. They do not reflect the nature of the men and women we have sent overseas. We've sent decent, compassionate, honorable, sacrificing citizens."

Today's Senate session was being broadcast by at least two Arab television networks.

Mr. Rumsfeld was to appear this afternoon before the House Armed Services Committee, where he was expected to deliver similar remarks and face similar sharp questioning.

Senator John Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Senate committee, opened the session with a pledge to probe the facts of the prison affair exhaustively "no matter where they lead, no matter how long it may be."

The committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said the "depraved and despicable" acts committed by some American soldiers had made the United States less secure by compromising its most precious asset: its moral values.

The soldiers responsible for the abuses must be found out and punished, Mr. Levin said. "So must anyone up the chain of command."

[Chris Alger]

This isn't news, it's theatre. What better way to shift the focus from the killing of civilians in Faluja, Kufa and Basra and the meltdown of good relations with Iraqis than to emphasize our self-flaggelation over the humiliation of prisoners? The news about the mistreatment of female detainees and the interrogation deaths hasn't sunk in yet, and maybe never will, so there's a element of preemption here.

But the constant media messages on the scandal are mostly pro-war: it's just a screw-up; everyone is appalled at humiliation (but not the civilian death toll, still a secret); the military system discovered the problem, is punishing the perps; the perps are a few bad apples in an ocean of well-intentioned heroes; Bush learned about it from TV (another teflon Pres); we'll pay compensation to the victims; we'll beef up training; we'll say we're really, really sorry over and over until the "patriots" begin to complain.

What no one's saying: the U.S. enlisted ranks are rife with sadists and sociopaths who believe Arabs are culturally retarded terrorists who deserve whatever they get.

And the meta-message: we're doing everything we possibly can do, from the highest levels on down. If the Iraqis and Arabs don't support our occupation (now scheduled to last through 2005), it will be (1) only because of this "humiliation" snafu; and (2) because they're too stupid and unforgiving to acknowledge our that U.S. interests are really everyone's interests.

Meanwhile, in Kufa: 23 Iraqis dead, bringing the civilian total to easily more than 10,0000. This time we wiped out a family, including a "2-year-old-girl and her cousins, boys ages 4 and 5 ... killed in a bomb explosion as they slept." (The Guardian)

[ACPlayer]

So, yesterday the story of the day was the pitures of torture being conducted by the US Military in Gharib despite information from Red Cross etc. Till a couple of days ago the Boss (Rumsfeld) had not even seen the pictures or the report. Management was aware that something was wrong but worrying about some Iraqi's was simply not worth Rummy's complete attention.

Now, the story is, what a great country the US is. See, we are talking about it, we are apologizing, democracy is working, Rummy's been chided, Bush has apologized to the King of Jordan, and oh yes we will pay some money to the victims.

Myers complains that all this was happening when the Fallujah thing was blowing up as was Najaf and other actions in the war theatre. Can our enemies now say, well we put American soldiers in front of cameras and slapped them a bit, but we had the whole American forces to worry about attacking us as we were doing so. Oh and by the way we are sorry about it.

One wonders whether the people who authorized the use of military contractors for military jobs (a situation I argued against before for just this accountability reason), whether there are any legal remedies against the contractors (the betting line is they get no punishment), whether our total disdain at the highest levels of govt for prisoners (Gitmo or Iraq or Afghanistan) will go unpunished.

Should the story be: Hey we apologized now get over it already.

[adios]

Obviously the administration is "circling the wagons" but that is wrong headed IMO. This a major fiasco for Bush but I'm not sure he get's it yet. The Iraqis aren't going to trust the US military to investigate itself and I dare say the rest of the Arab world isn't either. Certainly not with Rumsfeld leading the investigation, why should they? I'm not presuming to know how widespread this abuse was/is but Bush needs to do something to repair the damage that has been done. Sacking Rumsfeld IMO sends a message to Iraqis and the Arab world that Bush wants to get to the bottom of this and that he is serious about it. Also keeping Rumsfeld around and "spinning" events gives those such as ACPlayer, Cyrus , and Chris a stronger position.

[iblucky4u2]

Maybe Bush and his cronies should just apologize to the people of America for having killed hundreds of our finest, spent $200 billion (and counting), failing to get OSB, destroying all the good will America had after 9/11 and helping increase terrorism in the world and just pull out of Iraq and say <font color="red"> WE WON! </font>

They have lied about everything else, at least this strategy won't get any more Americans killed.

[sam h]

I agree he should sack Rumsfeld. But so much of the administration's PR strategy has revolved around not admitting that things have gone drastically wrong in Iraq that I doubt such a move is likely, especially given the upcoming election.

I also don't know whether or not Bush or others in the White House were made aware of the prisoner abuse longer ago than the administration is letting on.

On a side note, it was blatantly obvious that Rumsfeld was lying when McCain asked him yesterday who and what agency was in charge of the prisoner interrogations and he said he didn't know and was trying to find out. Of course he knows.

[Cyrus]

"Keeping Rumsfeld around and "spinning" events gives those [war's opponents] a stronger position."

As long as war's supporters treat these things in the context of "spin" and take decisions on the basis of "how it will play" with people, there is no hope for improving American strategy in Iraq.

The American strategy needs a serious overhaul, as pro-war Democrats are actively proposing (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/murtha.iraq/index.html). However all such suggestions are all too quickly dismissed as "partisan politics" by the GOP,. Well, as Adios, says the current situation only helps politically the war's and the GOP's opponents. If the war's opponents too were thinking along the lines of "spin", they would keep mum and let events carry the GOP to its November doom.

The American electorate is still more concerned about the economy and unemployment, than about Iraq, where about half of them (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/gallup.war/index.html) dispute the very worthiness of the war itself, and more than 60% believe that Bush is making a mess of it, even. And these beliefs carry over to the American electorate's view of the two Presidential candidates, on whom right now (before the real race has begun) they are about evenly split (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/gallup.poll/index.html).

What I'm trying to say is that, even for petty, partisan reasons, it would be advisable for the current American administration to admit its many mistakes and omissions, reach out to the rest of America's allies (and not just the "coalition") and change course in Iraq. Firing Rumsfeld is window dressing and won't accomplish anything down the road.

But this looks like being a very tall order for Dubya.

[Cyrus]

Everybody and his GOP-voting cousin knew that Rummie was going to lie and weasel his way through question time in Congress. So that particular sight, of him lying and lying again, was not susprising.

But it was susprising to see the once cocky and arrogant Department of Defense Secretary being asked a question about what and when he knew about the abuse, and turning to Myers and asking him in turn, "Dick, did you know?", getting a "No", and then Rummie turning behind to others in uniform and asking them the same question, "Anybody of you knew?". Every time a leader does that, it shows that he is no longer a leader; he is a wuss, trying to cover his ass by inviting his subordinates into the problem.

And, rest assured, the subordinates (the armed forces, in this case) can tell when the leader lets them down. So much for inspired leadership.

(The very sight of all those generals that Rummie brought along with him is indicative of the man's mind : Instead of coming alone --the invitation by the Committee was for him personally-- he asks that the brass accompany him. To show that this is about the U.S. Army as a whole --so you better show respect, Congressmen!-- and to show he is not alone in this. Like I said, what a wuss.)

[ACPlayer]

I dont want a stronger position. This is not about my winning an argument that I dont want to win (even though I think I am right), I dont even want to have this argument.

This is the second cabinet level official of this "administration" that has gotten up infront of congress and effectively admitted incompetent management. Both Rumsfeld and Condie knew there was information out there indicating problems (one prior to 9/11 and one for the past 2 years -- starting with the approach Gitmo). The top national security people are unable to put 2+2 together and do the right things to protect our country, its people and its reputation. Both these officials are more worried about how the administration looks than doing the right thing!

The situation is utterly horrible.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
ACPlayer: "The situation is utterly horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it seems like a big deal all right. Actually though, it's a lot closer to a "tempest in a teapot" than "utterly horrible". (A better definition of "utterly horrible" = what the Iraqis had to endure under Saddam Hussein).

So some soldiers were a$$h*l@s, they will be punished. So they used terrible judgment...nobody said they were all geniuses. So management isn't perfect in the US military...where is it perfect? An investigation commenced months ago. So the Arabs are hollering bloody murder--but in their countries, prisoners are actually tortured, not just humiliated, and tortured far worse, even tortured to death. Again no comparison. In Iraq itself this was kid stuff compared to the tortures that went on regularly at Abu Ghraib under Saddam's regime.

Typical world for ya: gets all upset about the relatively small stuff but tries to ignore the really heavy stuff.

This stuff was certainly less horrible than the murders and corpse-burnings of 4 Americans recently in Fallujah. Which, though, received the most worldwide press? Which did the world condemn more strongly? Which pictures did the press choose to display most? Which did the Arabs choose to show show the most outrage against? Anyone getting the idea that public opinion sucks, that we can't win in the arena of public opinion no matter what?

So: fire and/or prosecute those responsible. Then say "sorry" FOR THE LAST TIME and get back to business.

[ACPlayer]

You and Gamblor, cant seem to have any kind of honest self evaluation without characterizing the other guy. I take it you routinely play J-8 offsuit because the other guy plays it and wins and dont play A-A because the other guy played it and lost!

We have two managers who completely missed the boat (Rumsfeld more than Condi, but yes she fell down on the job too). We are at war and the senior people charged with managing our security are F'ing up, costing lives and credibility and you are offering up excuses that dont make a whit of difference in this analysis.

Talked about a closed mind. I really did expect a bit better (not much, but a bit).

[jdl22]

Why does Saddam torturing his people make it acceptable that we commit war crimes?

[MMMMMM]

It DOESN'T; but the responses of the public, the press and the world shows that the focus of public opinion is improperly weighted.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does Saddam torturing his people make it acceptable that we commit war crimes?

[/ QUOTE ]


It DOESN'T; but the relative responses of the public, the press and the world shows that the focus of public opinion is improperly weighted.

[MMMMMM]

Look, the fact that there are opposing sides in the conflict makes it necessary to characterize the other guy and compare appropriately even when doing a critical self-evaluation.

Take an overly simplified example: Mike Tyson is boxing Evander Holyfield. Holyfield is stiff-arming him which isn't perfectly sportsmanlike behavior, but it is nothing like Tyson's response of biting his ear off. Let's even imagine Holyfield did something a bit worse like a rabbit punch or hitting below the belt. You still can't fairly focus most of the criticism on Holyfield even if he is your guy, because there is a battle going on. If events took place in a vacuum that would be different, but they don't. When there is conflict between two sides, actions must be judged relatively.

If Holyfield had to fight under conditions where the referees allowed Tyson to bite him, but he could only punch Tyson (including rabbit punches), and the public threw more scorn on Holyfiield for his rabbit punches than for Tyson's ear chompings, that wouldn't be right, would it? Yet that is not a far off parallel from what is occurring in the evaluation of this scenario in Iraq and in the public outcry over it. And even more so if Tyson's camp regularly allowed him to bite his own sparring partners, but that same camp hollered bloody murder when Holyfield rabbit punched Tyson.

Now none of that makes it right for Holyfield to rabbit punch Tyson. But if that becomes a greater focus than Tyson's biting off an ear, then something is wrong with world opinion and the way most people are looking at things.

[MMMMMM]

Found this just now; it mirrors some of my own sentiments.

"Democracies and Double Standards
Our enemies have no business standing in judgment of America.

BY NEWT GINGRICH
Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The media coverage of the violations of American law against Iraqi prisoners is in peril of setting a dangerous double standard for America and the Arab world. The administration must be very careful in explaining how we feel and what we will do. Otherwise our enemies will use our own words as an excuse to exploit this double standard.

To be clear, a very small number of Americans did a terrible thing at Abu Ghraib. And because we live under the rule of law, and we take protecting the Constitution seriously, the accused will be investigated and, when guilty, punished. The incidents themselves are to be condemned.

Some have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. However, he has led the process of exposing the wrongdoing and investigating the charges. Moreover, he will see to it that the accused get a fair and honest trial, in which there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved and the guilty are punished. That due process is something we as Americans should be proud of, and unequivocal about. In view of Mr. Rumsfeld's significant contribution to our security, this incident will be but a footnote.

Explaining our anger at these misdeeds and our determination to punish the wrongdoers is appropriate. Appearing overly contrite or overly apologetic, however, will be a big mistake.

Not surprisingly, the anti-American left in our own country and in Europe--with its selective memory, remembering forever any American mistake while forgetting every anti-American and antihuman atrocity by others--is already on radio and television exploiting this as an opportunity to condemn America.

The pan-Arab media, with their selective outrage, honor and give prominence to terrorists and barbaric mobs. The smallest American error is given banner headlines, but is, in contrast, excoriated. It is suicidal to reinforce this double standard.

One needs to point out that the pan-Arab media said nothing when the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad destroyed Hama and killed more than 10,000 of his own innocent people, or when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iraqis and created 300,000 anonymous graves.

Nothing negative was said by the pan-Arab media when Americans were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, or when two Palestinian gunmen ambushed a pregnant woman last Sunday in her station-wagon and at point-blank range methodically killed her four children ages two to 11, and then killed her.

It is worth remembering that Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, wrote an article admitting that his network had deliberately covered up and ignored Saddam's atrocities to retain access to Baghdad--a policy of caution that, of course, is not reflected in the network's current coverage of charges against America.

One American newspaper, with a half-page dedicated to the allegations of brutality in Iraq, referred to the Sunday killings of a mother and her five children as "violence marred the Sunday Likud election." No outrage, no shock, no horror, just another day of viciousness and brutality by our enemies.

We should firmly state our commitment to our values and denounce any American acts that violate those values. But while we publicly uncover and explicitly demonstrate our commitment to punish the guilty for their crimes under our rule of law, we should not play into any double standard under which America is allowed to be condemned by anyone who accepts Arab viciousness, terrorism, mutilation and barbarism as normal behavior.

With equal firmness we should demand of the Arab governments and the Arab media their condemnation of barbarism, brutality and terrorism in their own communities.

Finally, we should angrily reject anyone who would smear the 200,000-plus courageous decent men and women who have risked--and are risking daily--their lives for a free Iraq, and for a safe America. Any effort by the anti-American left or the Arab media to generalize the acts of a few into an attack on America, or on America's armed forces, should be repudiated and condemned.

Mr. Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005055

[jdl22]

It's not. I'm much more concerned about the crimes committed by members of the military of my country than those of a despotic ruler of another country because while I have neither say nor stake in the latter I do in the former. The focus of the American public should be on the abuses we are committing especially since they actually affect the future of our country. Abuses committed by Saddam do not.

[MMMMMM]

Read my response to ACPlayer, and the post titled "Democracies And Double Standards"--they will provide my response to your view. The problem is that this is not happening in a vacuum, but in an arena of world public opinion (and especially Arab opinion) which seeks to castigate America for the slightest offence, whilst allowing Arab atrocities to go relatively untrumpeted and uncondemned--almost as if they are par for the course. If we allow our enemies to keep attacking us using such double standards--if we do not challenge their use of the double standard--the damage that will be done to us will be immeasurable.

[ACPlayer]

I would not trust the judgement of our enemies if they were to say something about America. That is hardly the point. We can stand in judgement of our own actions.

Here is an example (thanks to jdl22's response to the other mis-director Gamblor), do you say to yourself when you see me call three cold with J-8 that you are justified in calling three cold with J-10. Your line of thinking leads me to believe that for you this is a rational and normal way of thinking.

The correct way, which is to understand whether calling 3 cold with J-T is to analyze whether the action is correct regardless of what you see me doing on the table.

So, without judging the Islamist morons, judge our actions as whether they are moral or correct; judge the actions of the administration whether they are well thought out and well executed; judge the processes we follow in our decision making. It is possible to judge this without your usual rants and raves about how others are playing with garbage. Then you will see why the ship is floundering.

Do you think you can achieve this level of mature thinking and apply it evaluate our actions? Try it.

Take the steps to make us stronger then laugh at the tyrants -- by giving them attention we are encouraging them, by sinking to their level we are giving them justification to continue their actions. In fact we are becoming one.

[nicky g]

"Some have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. However, he has led the process of exposing the wrongdoing and investigating the charges. "

Is he kidding? Rummy sat on the reports until the photos were published.

[MMMMMM]

We ARE doing that, ACPlayer; we ARE judging these violations on their own merits. Where do you (or anyone) get the idea I am saying our actions should not be judged properly because we are in conflict? No; I am saying judge and punish the offenders appropriately--as we will-- but also call attention to the abuses--the routine and greater abuses--of the other side. Otherwise they win a great propaganda victory with even the moderate Arabs hearing only about how bad the USA is without also loudly hearing about the evils done by Arabs to Arabs.

The Arab press is biased, in some cases horribly so. Less educated and less read Arabs must be informed of the atrocities of their regimes; their deeds must be compared to American deeds--otherwise, if all they hear from the press (and their imams) is how horrible America and the West are, what do you think they are going to be inclined to believe? If we do not wage an informational war, many uninformed Arabs will hate us even more.

Should the focus of the world be on these unfortunate incidents at Abu Ghraib more than on the much greater atrocities going on right now? Well maybe for a short while yes, since it is news. But unless commensurate attention is paid to greater horrors, by the press and human rights orgs and governments--then the uninformed of the world are left with the impression that the USA is one of the worst countries instead of one of the best. Also, our true enemies--the jihadists, etc--are more than happy to dwell on such affairs to hurt us politically. Just as in advertising, repetition affects public opinion. This must be countered by doing the right thing--as we are in the process of doing--AND by focusing attention on the truly worst oppressions and human rights violations going on in the world today.

Some countries have truly horrid human rights records. Why should not more attention to the horrid regimes' records be dwelt upon in the world press and world opinion? Give this current event its due; take the proper corrective actions; and then work to focus attention on the most egregious human rights offenders.

What you must understand is that there is a worldwide propaganda war being waged, and we must not simply allow our enemies to divert attention from their own horror shows to us, whilst in the process getting the uninformed masses to hate us. You want the uneducated masses of the world to hate us even more? Well then just let the propaganda machines of despotic regimes keep attacking us without fighting back informationally, and they will. But maybe if someone laid out the abuses and compared them, the masses would get the idea that, relatively speaking, the USA is better than their country's regimes, or their country's religious leaders. Which, of course, is the reality of things. But unless the point is made, concretely and specifically, and driven home, their hate-America focus and propaganda will not be countered to any degree, and we will simply see greater levels of undeserved hatred growing and growing in the Arab world, while the rest of the jealous world looks on and feeds the fire subtly.

[jdl22]

While I can't speak for ACplayer, my problem and likely his is that you introduced the foreign press and worldwide view into a discussion about whether or nor Rumsfeld should be fired. That makes no sense. Whether or not the guy should be fired should not be affected by which atrocities the European press is focusing on.

We are discussing the horrible things that the US is doing/has done and who should be held accountable. Mentioning what other parties have done in the past or present only clouds the issue because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Your claim about foreigners (or Americans for that matter) focusing too much on American war crimes in lieu of those committed by the enemy may be a subject worth discussing but mentioning it every time anybody criticises American actions or says that somebody should be held to account for them makes you as biased as the proponents of the myth you describe, albeit biased in the other direction.

The problem you state is that people can't criticise the Arabs that are doing terrible things because they are too blinded by what the Americans are doing. I claim that you are similar if you just replace Arabs with Americans and vice versa.

[MMMMMM]

My post in no way was intended to address the question of whether Rumsfeld should be fired. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

Do you think I should have instead started an entirely separate thread? I thought my post was was relevant to the overall subject and I wasn't aware that threads should only address the title of the post. Weren't there other posts in the thread dealing with related matters, but not addressing the specific question of Rumsfeld's possible firing?

Also, I don't think your comparison--vis a vis the criticism of Arabs or the USA--is valid. My point is that the overall political picture is greatly skewed if we allow the focus to remain primarily on the USA's violations without appropriate attention to other countries' violations. Give this sad incident its due, and then focus on the bigger picture: that's my prescription.

I did not state, as you claimed, that Arabs can't criticize their own because they are blinded by American actions. I suggested that they be made more aware of their own violations and atrocities, and that we don't allow the propaganda war to become too one-sided, to our detriment.

[andyfox]

Surely you jest, MMMMMM. Your sentiments are much more clearly thought out, and better written, than Mr. Gingrich's.

Of course there's a double standard in the media for America and for the Arab world. Do we want to judge our government by the same standards as that by which we judge the government of, say, Saudi Arabia? Of course we should expect more of our government.

Rummy did not lead the charge for exposure. It was only after the sh*t hit the fan that he realized he had to do something.

Criticism of these things is not "anti-American." Newt just doesn't get it. The most critical person has been President Bush himself. Is he anti-American for doing this? The anti-American left that he sees forever remembering our mistakes and forgetting others' is a figment of his imagination.

I have heard no American critic of the wrongdoers condemn the 200,000 plus courageous decent men and women who have not participated in these acts. I have heard every American critic go out of his or her way to defend them and point out that the wrongdoers are a small minority and don't represent the others.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the kind words, Andy.

My argument is for appropriate criticism of our own policies and actions, for our own purposes--balanced by appropriate criticism of other actions and policies around the world, based upon merit. Otherwise, in the world public opinion wars (and the Arab public opinion war), we take it up the keister big-time--so to speak--unintentionally aiding our enemies' hidden agendas of deflecting much-deserved criticisms from themselves onto us or other scapegoats.

What I'm trying to say is there is a propaganda war going on out there and that it has real consequences. Most people, especially uninformed people, are going to hate the entity that receives the most negative press coverage. If all the papers are bemoaning is this rcent incident, instead of also bemoaning the countless worse Arab atrocities, just who is the uniformed Arab street going to be inclined to think is the worst government? After all, there is the principle of adsvertising at work: focus and repetition dotend to influence opinions.

Allowing the world to focus very disproportionately on our flaws merely engenders greater animosity towards us. In addition to dealing with the Abu Ghraib problem appropriately--which we must--we need a pro-active PR program of identifying and condemning worse abuses throughout the world, objectively, loudly and repetitively. Our enemies are doing this to us, and they delight in it, they gain from it, and we are politically and materially hurt by it. At the very least, we should balance the scales objectively and loudly.

None of this is to say our own diligence towards self-correction or improvement should not be paramount, but rather, that the world seems to keep losing perspective of things, and this can only hurt us--as well as hurt the chances for reform in the worst parts of the world. So we ought to have a concerted campaign to contrast true abuses, and to call for reform. Who knows, maybe if the Arab street actually heard as much about the abuses of Arab regimes, they might hate us less by comparison and feel more inclined to try to institute reforms. But the Arab presses generally report on anything bad elsewhere and not at home. It's a very one-sided propaganda battle, and one which greatly influences hearts and minds, much to our detriment--and also, sadly, mufch to the detriment of their own people.

[ACPlayer]

Well, this is the first time you have said that we should be. However, note that in a note with 5 paragraphs you have devoted exactly one to the judgement question and even that sort of tangentially. The other four para's have no bearing on our judging of our own behaviours.

So, how about it write us a post of the length that you have written this last post and explain to us your views of how high or low the possible culpability should be. You have no hesitiation in assigning culpability for the actions of terrorists to leaders of your choosing, so lets us hear your views on what happened here.

I doubt very much you will do so. Until you show that you are prepared to properly attempt an analysis of culpability and responsiblity for our own behaviours, we must take your attempts at analysis of others behaviours as propoganda and nonsense.

[jokerswild]

MMMMMMMMM defends any horror committed by the US neocon fascists. Stalin would have put out that he didn't know what happened in the Gulag. Hitler would have blamed his subordinates and denied knowledge of the crematoriums. The prisoner abuse has been shown by the Red Cross and Amnesty International to be common, wide spread, and still going on.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is the first time you have said that we should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I have repeatedly said that we should be so doing...if not in this thread, then in other threads.

[ QUOTE ]
However, note that in a note with 5 paragraphs you have devoted exactly one to the judgement question and even that sort of tangentially. The other four para's have no bearing on our judging of our own behaviours.

So, how about it write us a post of the length that you have written this last post and explain to us your views of how high or low the possible culpability should be. You have no hesitiation in assigning culpability for the actions of terrorists to leaders of your choosing, so lets us hear your views on what happened here.

I doubt very much you will do so. Until you show that you are prepared to properly attempt an analysis of culpability and responsiblity for our own behaviours, we must take your attempts at analysis of others behaviours as propoganda and nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I knew just who was culpable, ACPlayer, or if I knew how far up the chain of command the responsibility actually went, then of course I would do as you suggest. But since I don't--and neither do you--neither of us can write a meaningful post such as you would have.

If you reread my other posts, perhaps in other threads, you will see that I have repeatedly stated that this matter shpould be thoroughly investigated and where truly warranted prosecutions should proceed. Other than that, I really don't know what you would expect of me: would it help if I were to write 500 times: "Our soldiers did some very bad things which harmed the Iraqis and harmed our efforts and standing in the world, and this matter should be thoroughly investigated and dealt with in a manner so as to ensure it is not likely to be repeated, and the perpetrators should be dealt with appropriately including criminal prosecution where warranted"?

How you haven't managed to gather that that was my view from my other posts is beyond me, but there you have it. And since I won't be writing it 500 times, I'll leave it for you to read 500 times instead--which ought to be just as good or better.

[MMMMMM]

Jokerswild, how do you gather that I am defending these actions? I am not, I condemn them; and prosecutions should follow where warranted.

My point is that other more horrific human rights abuses are taking place all over the world and in Arab countries, and that these atrocities do not typically receive the appropriate level of condemnation or noise.

Also, the Arab countries, which typically engage in much greater human rights violations, are pointing fingers at us and hollering bloody murder over this, yet they don't point fingers at themselves or at each other for doing much worse things to Arabs. It's a double-standard all right, and it's high time that the rest of the world calls them on it and tells them to cut the crap. If the rest of the world won't, we should.

Now slow down, relax, and think this over a bit.

[nicky g]

"Also, the Arab countries, which typically engage in much greater human rights violations, are pointing fingers at us and hollering bloody murder over this, yet they don't point fingers at themselves or at each other for doing much worse things to Arabs."

Who do you mean by Arab countries? The states and dictators themselves? Well what do you expect, of course they're hypocrites. They're dictators. If the only people outraged were the likes of Mubarak and Assad noone would pay any attention. People aren't angry about the abuses because Arab states tell them to be outraged, they're angry because these things are being done by people acting in their name and paid for by their taxes. And they don't need to condemn every single other human rights violation in the world before they get around to focusing on ones their own governments are ultimately responsible for.

This whole hooha is somewhat pathetic. It would have revceived precisely zero attention if it weren't for the existence of the pictures. The Red Cross report pointed to much more serious abuses than the ones pictured, such as a prisoner having been sodomised with a chemical light, severe beatings, long periods of prisoners deprived of food, water and warmth in solitary confinement, numerous deaths in custody and at least two murders. But what is all the outrage about? The pictures whch detail abuses that, though serious and reprehensible, pale compared to other things the troops have got up to. Not to mention the mass slaughter in Falluja. The Red Cross report reportedly found abuses across more than a dozen jails in Iraq, but it's only Abu Ghraib wher ehthe photos were taken that's getting any attention, and we're supposed to be placacted by the fact it's going to be closed.

Incidentally, does anyone seriously doubt the accusations of the released British Guantanamo detainees that they were beaten and subjected to abuses of a sadistic and sexual nature? Or is that just a coincidence?

[MMMMMM]

Sorry Nicky but I think abuses should be condemned based on merit not source.

We should try our best to first remedy our own abuses and problems (of course), but on the world stage let's try to have at least a minimally level playing field when it comes to criticisms and condemnations, OK?

It's also utter bullcrap that countries which are some of the worst human rights violators in the world actually sit on the UN Human Rights Commission (that such a travesty even exists points up the useless, hypocritical and pandering nature of the UN).

As for Gitmo complaints, who knows, they might well have validity, but it would be a mistake to automatically presume that they are 100% true. My guess would be they are both somewhat true and somewhat embellished for political reasons or perhaps in hopes of gaining compensation.

[nicky g]

"We should try our best to remedy our own first (of course), but on the world stage, let's try to have at least a minimally level playing field when it comes to criticisms and condemnations, OK?"

WWhat do you mean by this? Where, at what level? The press?The western press is always going to be more interested in stories close to home, and in many ways rightly so; the people who read it have the power to change their own government's policies. Obviously censored outlets in repressive countries are not going to be able to report on domestic abuses. As for the organisations that monitor such things professionally, they do spend most of their time condemning non-Western abuses. But let's face it: if Western governments and the Western press are only interested in human rights abuses when they are newsworthy or somehow in their interest (how much did we hear about Saddam's abuses in the run up to the war? How much did we hear when he was our ally? How much did we hear about Ghaddaffi's abuses when Bush and Blair were trumpetting his renunciation of his two bob "WMD" programme?) then the vast majority are going to remain ignored.

"It's also utter BS that countries which serve on the UN human rights commission are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. "

I agree. On the other hand, there are about two and a half countries in the world that are qualified to sit on it, which is something of a problem. Also, who should decide who is qualified?

[MMMMMM]

I'm just saying that abuses anywhere in the world should be given more attention by the free presses of the world, and more especially so the most atrocious abuses. Also our governments should have a specific program of calling attention to such abuses and not merely leave it up to groups such as Amnesty International, etc.


[ QUOTE ]
M:"It's also utter BS that countries which serve on the UN human rights commission are some of the worst human rights violators in the world. "

nickyg: I agree. On the other hand, there are about two and a half countries in the world that are qualified to sit on it, which is something of a problem. Also, who should decide who is qualified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess that gets to the heart of the matter. Morally speaking, that question also rather points up an argument for moral absolutes rather than moral relativism, doesn't it?

That only about two-and-a-half countries in the world, as you put it, are qualified to sit on the UN commission on human rights brings up a rather paradoxical situation, doesn't it? This is precisely one of the reasons the UN should be dissolved to be replaced by a new organization formed entirely of free countries. Others might join as they reform.

And who, you ask, should decide? Practically speaking, that question shows the inherent absurdity of maintaining the existence of an organization which is supposed to enhance human rights but which itself is primarily comprised of hooligan regimes, dictators and fascists.

[andyfox]

As far as the hooligan regimes in the UN, wouldn't we rather, as LBJ so tactfully said about J. Edgar Hoover, have them on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in? If we kicked out the bad guys, wouldn't we have even less influence on them?

[MMMMMM]

Well they're doing a mighty good job of pissing all over the inside. Aren't you tired of getting wet yet?

[CORed]

This had to be the most public "private" chiding ever. I'm not sure that Bush didn't know about the abuses. I think it's likely that Rumsfeld is being made the fall guy to try to protect Bush.

[elwoodblues]

In order to be a fall guy, he has to take a fall. I don't foresee that.

[andyfox]

Nobody likes to get wet, but it still might be drier this way. I dunno.

[ACPlayer]

Well, you have little trouble in offering ill-informed opinions about every thing else, how come a sudden urge to try and be informed?