It's time for Rumsfeld to go

I'm watching the congress investigation into the photos released last week in the Iraq prison. They're not talking about the main issue - who's to blame for this? Pass the buck seems to be this administration's policy. I thought it was supposed to be about why Rummie didn't share this info with the congress and president Bush?

I am watching it too, it is a sham. The ones who want to ask tough questions get the run around by Rumsfeild.

What rummy is saying now is that when the first happened in Januray they started investagating it and they announced in the press. I guess I have been on mars during that new coverage.

Everytime someone ask a question, rummy will turn it around and reword it and then asnwer the question from his own wording rather than the question asked. Then they run out of time. It is a disgrace following a thousand disgraces.

His rationalizing continues to go back to the photographs being released "illegally" much to everyone's surprise. Now isn't that too bad.

Their policy to restrict war related photographs should tell the world why this administration is wrong for everybody, but Bush supporters just doesn't understand the whys. The ineptness of these hearings just shows why the world community doesn't respect this country as the only superpower.

Do you somehow feel differently about the administration than you did before? I haven't noticed any difference in the hate that was expressed here before the photos were released and after. so, if the photos were not released and the matter was handled internally, it would make no difference what so ever in how many people see the current administration.

I'd be wondering not what the posters at A2K express but what the world now thinks of America. If you don't want to worry about that just stay in a fatuous state until the **** hits the fan.

Rumsfeld resign? Don't be ridiculous

Actually this picture could apply to "The Left Wing" instead of "The Arab world:"

McG, The current crisis is only one symptom of many that we're trying to point out. When you continue to defend this administration by calling it "hate," you ignore what is obvious to most in this world. This war in Iraq has been wrong from the very beginning; nobody in this administration or its supporters are willing to see what has happened in the past, the present, and what we can anticipate for our future. I don't see the sacrifice of more of our military men and women, the innocent killings of Iraqis, and the future cost to justify anything we are doing in Iraq. It always was and should be a international effort to rid this world of terrorism, and don't insult our intelligence by saying we have a "coalition."

Those in the world who might hate this administration are not all Arabs.

It's always easier to examine the negatives C.I.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRAQ: WORK TO BE PROUD OF

May 7, 2004 -- THE last time I was in Iraq, I met with a delegation of graduate students from Baghdad's best universities. Two hours into the discussion, one student said something extraordinary to me. He likened us to "doctors" and Iraq to a "patient" who needed radical surgery: "You [Americans] have started the operation. We are on the operating table. You can't leave now. You've got to finish," he pleaded.
I let him know that the United States was committed to restoring Iraq to health and would stay through the period of convalescence.

As head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency at the forefront of reconstruction efforts, let me review what we've done in the first year.

USAID was charged with two essential tasks: humanitarian relief and reconstruction. Traditionally, it takes months to move from the humanitarian to the reconstruction phases of an intervention. We set out to do both at once. Careful planning and inter-agency coordination paid off. We worked closely with the military's civil affairs units and several key contractors and private relief groups and headed off the widely-predicted post-liberation humanitarian crisis.

We moved almost seamlessly to reconstruction. The need was enormous:

* Our first priorities were water, sanitation, public health, essential services and infrastructure. Vast swathes of the country - particularly in the largely Shia south - were destitute. No new infrastructure had been built for more than a decade in the south, and very little basic maintenance had been done.

* The draining of the southern marshlands was an ecological and human catastrophe, killing and sending hundreds of thousands into exile and destroying an immense and unique natural water filtration system, the fishing industry and water buffalo herds that provide dairy for the south.



* Every statistical measurement of individual well-being dropped sharply in the last years of Saddam's rule. The data on infant mortality and maternal death rates, in female literacy and family income, in life expectancy, caloric intake, all pointed downward.

We've spent more than $3 billion so far - a level of commitment not seen since the end of World War II and the Marshall Plan, to which USAID traces its origins.

Our accomplishments?

* We have rehabilitated eight power plants and are installing three new ones. We are also replacing towers, stringing wires, rebuilding lines and installing new generators.

* We have played a key role in restoring Iraq's transport and communication systems. Among other things, we have repaired the Baghdad airport and the country's deep-water port. We have rebuilt bridges, improved rail service and repaired the fiber optic network.

* We expect child mortality and water-borne disease to drop sharply as a result of our commitment to repair and rehabilitate the water and sewerage system throughout the whole of the country. We are in the process of vaccinating 3 million Iraqi children. We are reequipping 600 health-care clinics, training doctors and nurses and distributing high-protein supplementary food rations to hundreds of thousands of pregnant and nursing mothers.

* USAID has also helped uncover mass graves where as many as 400,000 Iraqi victims of Saddam's genocide campaigns lie buried. Hundreds of thousands of others, including untold numbers of children, died from deliberate neglect, indifference and politically motivated deprivation.

And we're helping the Iraqi Human Rights Association inventory the mass murder that took place under Saddam. A spokesman of the group put things very well when he said that what Iraq needs most of all is "not technicians and engineers" - "but someone to rebuild our souls."

* Which brings us to USAID's efforts to rehabilitate and restructure the Iraqi educational system so that it can shed the legacy of four decades of totalitarian rule and enter the ranks of the civilized world as a fully modern and productive nation.

* We're also working to build democracy at the grassroots, empowering the many enlightened and talented people of Iraq, men and women, who were repressed and silenced under Ba'athist rule.

We have built local governments throughout the country, so they can deliver the essential services a modern Iraq needs. Our efforts have resulted in the formation of councils in 16 governates, 78 districts, 192 cities and sub-districts and 392 neighborhoods representing 80 percent of the country's population.

We've got a lot yet to do - but what USAID's dedicated workers have achieved so far, sometimes at considerable personal risk, should be a source of pride for every American.

Andrew S. Natsios is the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
Most Dismayed, But Few Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

May 7, 2004?- Most Americans express dismay about the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, and the nation divides on whether the Bush administration sought at first to investigate the scandal ?- or to cover it up.

Yet more than six in 10 also see these incidents as isolated, and say they should not cost Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld his job.

Three-quarters of the public are closely following the story, a level of attention reserved for some of the most gripping news events. Two-thirds favor criminal charges against the soldiers involved; fewer ?- but still a majority ?- 54 percent, say punishment should go up the chain of command to higher-level officers who allowed a breakdown of training and discipline.

Still, given current knowledge, most say the buck should stop before it gets to Rumsfeld. Twenty percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say he should resign, while many more, 69 percent, say he should retain his position. Even most Democrats ?- hardly the administration's fondest fans ?- say Rumsfeld should stay.

Views may be changeable based on the facts that develop and the level of attention the issue commands.

Anger about the incidents is highest among people who are following the story most closely, and much lower among those who haven't paid it much attention.

Similarly, while relatively few in any group say Rumsfeld should go, calls for his departure are least prevalent among people who haven't tuned in to the controversy.

And people who think abuse has been widespread, rather than isolated, are three times more likely to say Rumsfeld should resign (37 percent of them say so, compared with 12 percent of those who think the incidents are isolated.)

Government Accuntability [ROFL at the typo - T.]
Donald Rumsfeld Should: Resign His Job Keep His Job
All 20 percent 69 percent
Democrats 30 percent 58 percent
Independents 17 percent 73 percent
Republicans 11 percent 82 percent

Bush Administration Response

Assessments of George W. Bush's response to the scandal are more positive than negative, but with many withholding judgment: Forty-eight percent approve, 35 percent disapprove and 17 percent have no opinion. In a positive sign for the president, his approval rating for handling the situation peaks, at 54 percent, among those who are following it most closely.

Bush might be helped by apologizing, perhaps more directly than he has to date: Fifty-nine percent of Americans say he should apologize directly to the Iraqi people. Nearly half of Republicans say so, as well as six in 10 or more Democrats and independents.

A danger for Bush, as for Rumsfeld, is the possibility of revelations indicating the abuse was more widespread. Among people who think it's isolated, 62 percent approve of the way Bush is handling it; among those who think it's widespread, his approval falls to 25 percent. People who think the abuse is widespread also are far more likely to think the administration initially tried to cover it up.

The partisan, 50-50 nation rears its head on questions of the administration's initial response to the scandal. With huge differences by political affiliation, the public divides evenly, 42-42 percent, on whether the administration acted quickly enough in investigating these reports when they first became known, or moved too slowly.

It's almost an identical division, 44-43 percent, on whether the administration initially sought to investigate the scandal or cover it up. Again there are vast partisan differences in these views: Republicans and Democrats are a mirror image, with independents split down the middle.

Was the Administration Mainly Trying to Investigate the Issue or Cover it Up?
Administration Sought to: Investigate Cover it Up
All 44 percent 43 percent
Democrats 26 percent 62 percent
Independents 44 percent 42 percent
Republicans 67 percent 22 percent

War Views on the war itself are largely stable, and not particularly positive. A new low, 38 percent, say the administration has a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq (it was close to that, 42 percent, last fall). Six in 10 continue to say the United States has gotten bogged down there. And the public still divides about evenly, now 49-47 percent, on whether the war was worth fighting, a division that's been more or less steady in ABC/Post polls since February.

Isolated? As noted, the public by 2-1, 62 percent to 31 percent, thinks the apparent abuse represents "a few isolated incidents" rather than something more widespread. The sense that it's isolated peaks among Republicans, at 75 percent, and it's much higher among whites (68 percent) than among non-whites, who divide evenly on the question.

Impact of Scandal There is broad agreement, though, that the scandal is a legitimate one. Only seven percent of Americans say they're "not concerned" about it. Instead 39 percent are "concerned," a quarter "upset" and another quarter downright "angry."

Anger peaks, at 34 percent, among those who are following the scandal most closely, and it's lowest, 14 percent, among those who are not following it closely. Similarly, among those who are following it very closely, 26 percent say Rumsfeld should resign; among those not following it closely, this drops to 10 percent.

Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 5-6, 2004, among a random national sample of 802 adults. The results have a 3.5-point error margin. Field work by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

See previous analyses, full questionnaire and details of the poll's methodology in our Poll Vault.

Link

McGent, I'm sure there are many things Americans can be proud of in Iraq; but the fundamental question is at what cost to Americans? Did you know we still have discrimination in the US, and we're trying to bring "democracy" to Iraq? Don't you see that there's something wrong with this picture? Do you understand that Amereican-style democracy will not work in Iraq? Do you know how much more sacrifice will be required by us to stablize Iraq? Do you know that the current national deficit is going to be impossible to maintain into the future when there will be more retirees than workers? That there is no such thing as a "social security-MediCare trust fund?"

Donald Rumsfeld Should Go
May 7, 2004

There was a moment about a year ago, in the days of
"Mission Accomplished," when Donald Rumsfeld looked like a
brilliant tactician. American troops - the lean, mean
fighting machine Mr. Rumsfeld assembled - swept into
Baghdad with a speed that surprised even the most
optimistic hawks. It was crystal clear that the Defense
Department, not State and certainly not the United Nations,
would control the start of nation-building. Mr. Rumsfeld,
with his steely grin and tell-it-like-it-is press
conferences, was the closest thing to a rock star the Bush
cabinet would ever see.

That was then.

It is time now for Mr. Rumsfeld to go, and not only because
he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu
Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough. The United
States has been humiliated to a point where government
officials could not release this year's international human
rights report this week for fear of being scoffed at by the
rest of the world. The reputation of its brave soldiers has
been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably
harder because members of the American military tortured
and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame
Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an
isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should
have known, given the flood of complaints and reports
directed to his office over the last year.

The world is waiting now for a sign that President Bush
understands the seriousness of what has happened. It needs
to be more than his repeated statements that he is sorry
the rest of the world does not "understand the true nature
and heart of America." Mr. Bush should start showing the
state of his own heart by demanding the resignation of his
secretary of defense.

This is far from a case of a fine cabinet official undone
by the actions of a few obscure bad apples in the military
police. Donald Rumsfeld has morphed, over the last two
years, from a man of supreme confidence to arrogance, then
to almost willful blindness. With the approval of the
president, he sent American troops into a place whose
nature and dangers he had apparently never bothered to
examine.

We now know that no one with any power in the Defense
Department had a clue about what the administration was
getting the coalition forces into. Mr. Rumsfeld's blithe
confidence that he could run his war on the cheap has also
seriously harmed the Army and the National Guard.

This page has argued that the United States, having toppled
Saddam Hussein, has an obligation to do everything it can
to usher in a stable Iraqi government. But the country is
not obliged to continue struggling through this quagmire
with the secretary of defense who took us into the swamp.
Mr. Rumsfeld's second in command, Paul Wolfowitz, is
certainly not an acceptable replacement because he was one
of the prime architects of the invasion strategy. It is
long past time for a new team and new thinking at the
Department of Defense.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07FRI1.html?ex=1084936487&ei=1&en=e44882d8c3278ff2

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

It's long past time for Rummy the Dummy to go.

The war in Iraq was right, not wrong. Not only was it right, but it will probably have to be repeated more than once in the not too distant future, since the advance of world technology will bring WMD within the reach of more people who want them, as time goes on. Any time a latter day Hitler/Stalin figure like Hussein begins developing WMD, as he did, he will have to be asked to stop. A person of that caliber simply cannot possess weapons one single use of which could kill as many as a million people at once. When peaceful means to prevent someone like Hussein from obtaining WMD seem to have been exhausted, or if there is a strong possibility that peaceful means have failed, at some point military means will have to be used, since the alternative is to risk the obliteration of millions of Americans or other non-combatants, wherever such a weapon would be used.

Since you mention it, we do have a coalition. If the UN had been willing to take military action, that would have been great, but they were not, and the job had to be done. And just to respond in advance to the all-too-predictable chant that no WMD were found - that's irrelevant. At the time of our invasion, the history and probabilities were such that we could not afford to take a chance that there were still WMD there. Because had there been WMD there, and had Hussein remained in power, the weapons would someday soon have been used to annihilate a huge number of American or other lives.

On the one hand he says that everyone was aware of the problem back in january when they first announced it in the press. Then he says information or the (something like) the kurbel report (please excuse that horrible spelling) didn't reach all the way up through the chain of command. He said that in response to Hillary pointing out that though he might not have seen the pictures until recently (Ha) the report itself should have been warning enough to have warranted swift action and telling the President and congress about the awful nature of the abuse. (another ha about the president)

For the life of me I can't understand this country and its willingness to keep swallowing all these lame stories to every accusation brought forth. If I hear one more time "the actions of a few" I think I am going to scream.

It's in danger of looking like a bunch of tired old men apologizing and rationalizing for farting in public.

Then he says information or the (something like) the kurbel report (please excuse that horrible spelling) didn't reach all the way up through the chain of command.

When Rummy the Dummy referred to "up the chain of command," did he mean to himself or his boss, George W. Bush?

It's unclear. If he was referring to himself then the statement that an investigation was underway in January has to be a lie.

If he's referring to Bush, well, consider the source. Bush didn't react to the August 6, 2001, PDB warning of a terrorist attack on American soil while playing with the chickens at his ranch, so why would a few dozen tortured Iraqis matter to him?