W couldn't say, "I'm sorry."

Scrat wrote:

I heard it posited by a reasonable Arab scholar last night that the US has apologized too much already.

Let's be honest here, if Bush, Rumsfeld, anyone from the administration had said "We are sorry" straight out, the people complaining that they haven't would be here complaining that they didn't mean it, or that they didn't say "We are really, really sorry", or complaining about something else. No matter what, you'd find a way to complain about this.

To many Americans, this issue is reason for disappointment, disgust, concern for those mistreated, concern over potential backlash for our other troops, condemnation for the morons who acted so despicably...

But for the usual suspects, this is just more fodder for their endless anti-Bush tirades.

Just as no matter what bush did you would find a way to defend it...so by condemning "us" you condemn yourself.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I heard it posited by a reasonable Arab scholar last night that the US has apologized too much already.

Let's be honest here, if Bush, Rumsfeld, anyone from the administration had said "We are sorry" straight out, the people complaining that they haven't would be here complaining that they didn't mean it, or that they didn't say "We are really, really sorry", or complaining about something else. No matter what, you'd find a way to complain about this.

To many Americans, this issue is reason for disappointment, disgust, concern for those mistreated, concern over potential backlash for our other troops, condemnation for the morons who acted so despicably...

But for the usual suspects, this is just more fodder for their endless anti-Bush tirades.

Just as no matter what bush did you would find a way to defend it...so by condemning "us" you condemn yourself.

That is not just untrue, it's unsupported by my statements, actions, or comments here.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ire. :wink:

0 Replies

Hot off the press:

President Bush says he is sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of U.S. troops. Details soon.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Hot off the press:

President Bush says he is sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of U.S. troops. Details soon.

see my previous post re: the barn door

0 Replies

See? No apology at any time would ever be good enough for some people.

0 Replies

exactly.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush Apologizes for Iraqi Prison Abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush told Jordan's King Abdullah on Thursday he was sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners who have been abused by their American jailers.

"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," the Republican president said during a Rose Garden appearance with Abdullah.

Link

And I'm sure it is:

1. Too late
2. Said to the wrong person
3. Not said with enough groveling
4. Etc. ad nauseam

0 Replies

IMO, the big complaint would truthfully be that he did it off-camera and denied a clip for his opponents' ads.

0 Replies

Quote:

Never mind that our President has nothing to apologize FOR.

and a few posts later

Quote:

President Bush says he is sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of U.S. troops.

But he's only sorry because the story got out, and it might damage him politically. He's known about it for months. Rummy told Condi and Condi sat on his lap and explained all the big words.

What's puzzling me is why the US wanted to embark on a program of systematic torture, humiliation and abuse. Intelligence gained by torture is often more bother than its worth. So why do it unless you are just trying to deliberately intimidate the population?

0 Replies

Don't you mean Etcetera ad Nauseous

0 Replies

My take is that it's not "the US" that sanctioned this but a widespread problem based on lax standards and wide deployment of relatively green soldiers.

I think these fellas had the sanction from people slightly above them in rank to help "soften" prisoners for interogation and that the crudeity and the fact that it was documented represents idiocy and incompetence.

I think a plan to use this kind of thing (which is also a domestic political bomshell) as a tool for the masses is very very very farfetched.

0 Replies

Well, it appears the worm has turned. The NY Times now reports that Bush has apologized to the King of Jordan for the suffering of the Iraqi prisoners....

0 Replies

Well I hope it is Craven as we went into Iraq to put an end to torture humiliation, summary executions etc etc.

but these incidents are not isolated. They amount to a systematic program of abuse which could only have been authorised (and denied) at a high level.

Rumsfeld for one was well aware what was going on and by not proactively investigating and putting a stop to it, he authorised it by default.

Not very nice to realise your government is capable of such barbarity, but then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

The point I'm making here is that the Americans were never engaged in any battle for hearts and minds. They have occupied the bits of Iraq they are interested in and basically don't give a sh1t about the rest of the country or the Iraqi people. In fact by getting engaged in a guerilla war of their own making, it provides the excuse for continuing the occupation.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

They amount to a systematic program of abuse which could only have been authorised (and denied) at a high level.

I think it was syetematic but do not know of any evidence at all that can support the conclusion that it "could only have been authorized at a high level".

Do you?

Quote:

Rumsfeld for one was well aware what was going on and by not proactively investigating and putting a stop to it, he authorised it by default.

I think you are confusing the facts a wee bit. Rummy was aware of AND was investigating this. What he did do was keep it from the President and the public.

I do not know of any evidence that he was sanctioning it, he was trying to investigate it and quell it silently and tried to keep it from the public (note that this contradicts the conspiracy theory you forwarded in that this was supposed to be a broadside against Arabs). Do you?

0 Replies

Tony Snow was talking about this in depth on his radio show this morning. He said there have been many people already disciplined, terminated, etc. He was also talking about the detailed investigation. The General who did it pulled no punches.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think it was syetematic but do not know of any evidence at all that can support the conclusion that it "could only have been authorized at a high level".

Do you?

No

Only that the middle ranks who had to issue the instructions would know it was in breach of the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war regarding the treatment of prisoners, and therefore rendered them liable to prosecution.

If your organisation expected you to carry out an act that was clearly illegal, wouldn't you want assurance from the very top that it was necessary?

Its possible of course that intelligence officers are just psychopatic murderers but I dont think so. They obey orders, as Janis Karpinski said.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

The General who did it pulled no punches.

I agree. Though I think it was silly for the military to try to keep the report hidden.

0 Replies

?
"What he did do was keep it from the President..."

I find this to be incredulous! The Sec.of Defense kept a looming scandal from The Pres. or months and didn't warn him. The Pres. finds out from the Media. Is this logical?

BTW this situation has been forwarded as only being humiliation of prisoners. The right wing has made light of this as being beneign. The torture and murder part has been shoved way in the background. That is the real story.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Only that the middle ranks who had to issue the instructions would know it was in breach of the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war regarding the treatment of prisoners, and therefore rendered them liable to prosecution.

Actually, the reservists involved had no Geneva knowledge or training. This is neither an excuse nor something that precludes liability but is an example of, well, what is basically lacking knowledge of this situation.

Quote:

If your organisation expected you to carry out an act that was clearly illegal, wouldn't you want assurance from the very top that it was necessary?

Yes, and those involved repeatedly sent out feelers and asked. They did not receive any sanction from above by their own estimation (and it is to their interest to).

The communications involved is pretty well documented. The individuals being charged have it in their interest to take it as high as they can and avoid being the scapegoats but they've not alleged what you suspect.

Quote:

Its possible of course that intelligence officers are just psychopatic murderers but I dont think so. They obey orders, as Janis Karpinski said.

They were not intelligence officers, they were people who were helping the intelligence officers. Not really relevant but it does show that you could probably hammer out what is known before the speculation.

0 Replies

Plausible deniability?

0 Replies

W couldn't say, "I'm sorry."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know