It's time for Rumsfeld to go

As has been noted, the strategy is already clear: Pin the blame on a few soldiers (the fools who posed for those photos), make statements about how these actions don't reflect the American that Bush knows and loves, and hope the whole thing blows over.

Let's not forget the real goal here: To reelect Bush in 2004. If the team in charge gets the sense that Americans want all this to go away, they'll breathe a sigh of relief...

The blame game is blooming:



Raise your hand if you think Rumstud (that's what Bush has nicknamed him; no kidding) wasn't kept informed by Sanchez nor Miller.

Time for Rumsfeld to go...where? Syria, Iran...China?

And who's he going to take with him 101 airborne or just himself?

BBB urges everyone to read the following
BBB urges everyone to read the following thread:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=688574#688574

Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
May 12, 2:42 PM (ET)
By KEN GUGGENHEIM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.

Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well as rules permitting prisoners to be made to assume stress positions.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also noted that the rules require prisoners to be treated humanely at all times.

But Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. said some of the approved techniques "go far beyond the Geneva Convention," a reference to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

Rumsfeld spoke after two weeks of controversy provoked by photographs of American military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq. An American was beheaded in a videotaped execution posted to a militant Islamic web site on Tuesday - a killing that captors said was revenge for the abuse of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison.

With lawmakers immersed in the flap surrounding the pictures of abuse at the prison formerly run by Saddam Hussein, President Bush declared there was "no justification" for the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq.

He said the terrorists who executed Nicholas Berg wanted to "shake" America's resolve in bringing democracy to the war-torn country.

"The actions of the terrorists who executed this man remind us of the nature of the few people who want to stop the advance of freedom in Iraq," Bush said.

The Defense Department is conducting multiple investigations into the abuse, and congressional hearings are under way, as well. At the insistence of lawmakers, the Pentagon arranged for members of Congress to view photos and videos during the day. They depict the abuse, including examples of prisoners forced into sexually humiliating poses.

Durbin noted that one American GI was missing in Iraq, his whereabouts unknown. Given the circumstances, he asked Rumsfeld, "wouldn't it help if there was clarity from you and from this administration that we would abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to civilian and military detainees unequivocally?"

Expanding his question to include detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, he asked whether such a declaration would "also serve to help American prisoners" held captive.

Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq, but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the global war on terror are held.

Any al-Qaida or Taliban personnel taken prisoner are to be treated consistent with the Geneva Convention, under a decision made by Bush, Rumsfeld added.

He said the distinction is that the international rules govern wars between countries but not those involving groups such as al-Qaida. "Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians," Rumsfeld added.

A second Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said that a report issued in March by Human Rights Watch "corroborated such things" as sleep deprivation, prisoners kept naked in sleeping cells or forced to stand or kneel for hours.

The report covers prisoners held in Afghanistan, he said, adding it "appears to be exactly the same technique" as was employed in Iraq.

Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials have said the abuses in Abu Ghraib were unauthorized actions taken by a handful of personnel, and Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the mistreatment, testified to that effect before a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Half a world away, there were further repercussions.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt announced that two more American soldiers have been ordered to stand trial in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal although no date for the courts-martial was set. Sgt. Javal Davis, 26, of Maryland and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II of Buckingham, Va., were ordered to undergo a general court-martial, Kimmitt said. Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, of Hyndman, Pa., goes on trial May 19 before a special court martial, which cannot levy as severe a sentence as a general court-martial.

Taguba told the Senate Armed Services Committee that military police who acted improperly did so "of their own volition." But several senators questioned whether low-ranking soldiers would have created the sexually humiliating scenarios by themselves.

"It implies too much knowledge of what would be particularly humiliating to these Muslim prisoners," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "And that is why, even though I do not yet have the evidence, I cannot help but suspect that others were involved, that military intelligence personnel were involved, or people further up the chain of command."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., challenged Taguba on his statement that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who headed the 800th Military Police Brigade at the prison, bore responsibility for a breakdown in discipline that led to abuse.

Taguba testified that orders were issued taking tactical control of the Abu Ghraib facility away from Karpinski and giving it to Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.

"It was clear that he was directed to be the forward operating base commander there for security detainees and force protection," Taguba said. "However, General Karpinski challenged that and she noted that in her recorded testimony."

Taguba said the order placing Pappas in charge of prison policy where Karpinski's MPs worked created a confusing situation and was contrary to Army doctrine. Nonetheless, he found that Karpinski retained overall responsibility for the MPs in her brigade and assigned much of the blame for the abuse to inadequate leadership on her part.

Asked to put in simple words how the abuses happened, Taguba said: "Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision. Supervisory omission was rampant."

Karpinski has been suspended and issued an official letter of admonishment in connection with the abuse. She has not been charged and has asserted other officers are attempting to make her a scapegoat.

General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case
General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:19 p.m. ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army general under investigation for anti-Islamic remarks has been linked by U.S. officials to the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, which experts warned could touch off new outrage overseas.

A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

Critics have suggested those recommendations amounted to a senior-level go-ahead for the sexual and physical abuse of prisoners, possibly to "soften up" detainees before interrogation -- a charge the Pentagon denies.

Congressional aides and Arab-American and Muslim groups said any involvement by Boykin could spark new concern among Arabs and Muslims overseas the U.S. war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam.

"This will be taken as proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib (prison) is evidence of a broader culture of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims, based on the American understanding of the innate superiority of Christendom," said Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East Report, a U.S.-based quarterly magazine.

One Senate aide, who asked not to be identified, said any involvement by Boykin could be explosive. "Even if he knew about the abuse, that would be a big deal," he said.

Boykin has declined comment, and defense officials could not say what the extent of his involvement or knowledge about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners might have been.

Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in uniform in which he referred to the war on terrorism as a battle with "Satan" and said America had been targeted "because we're a Christian nation." He said later he was not anti-Islam or any other religion.

President Bush distanced himself from Boykin's remarks, but the Pentagon said it would not fire the general, who played a role in the 1993 clash with Somali warlords and the ill-fated hostage rescue attempt in Iran in 1980.

CALLS FOR REASSIGNMENT

Hussein Ibish, communications director for the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, said his group and others had repeatedly called for Boykin to be reassigned to a less sensitive job until the Pentagon inspector general completes his investigation of Boykin's remarks.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner and congressional Democrats have also urged Boykin to step aside, but the Pentagon has defended his right to free speech.

Defense officials said the IG investigation, begun last fall, was nearly done and a report could be issued next month.

"I'm not saying Boykin is directly responsible. ... But there is a collective failure here," Ibish said. "There is a tolerance in our society, in our government, in our media for hateful rhetoric when directed against Arabs and Muslims.

"It definitely contributes to a climate in which these young MPs apparently felt it was ... OK to abuse Muslim and Arab men like this."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, chided the Pentagon for not acting promptly to discipline Boykin and the delayed engagement of top military leaders on the prisoner abuse scandal.

"It creates a climate in which ... the perpetrators believe they're carrying out the policies of those above them, whether those policies are explicit or not," Hooper said.

Time for a full accounting
Posted on Wed, May. 12, 2004
Time for a full accounting
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - When the people of power in this town find it necessary to issue ringing declarations of overwhelming support for one of their own, as they've done all week for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, it usually means that the object of their affection is toast.

President Bush visited the Pentagon and was shown new, even worse photos of prisoner abuse that are a harbinger of bad news still to come, then declared of Rumsfeld: "You are a strong secretary of defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." Rumsfeld's good friend Vice President Dick Cheney already had called him "the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had."

That doesn't mean Rumsfeld is out of the woods or the woodshed. Au contraire. Around here, that's usually interpreted as a sure sign that it's time to hire a moving van.

What strikes terror in the hearts of the administration isn't just the squalid photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, but also a fear that a slumbering, complacent Congress might awaken and begin doing its job for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001.

Having gotten a taste for the spotlight, and watching executive branch big shots squirming under even the most inane of questions, what's to stop the committees of the House and Senate from examining the administration's rationales and planning for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their conduct of both?

The Bush administration has gotten a free ride from Congress and the American public since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They demanded wartime powers, wartime secrecy, a wartime constriction of personal liberties and a wartime blank check from the public treasury.

With great freedom and great power, however, come great responsibility. What have they done with this? What are their successes? What are their failures?

Perhaps the time has come for a full accounting. Rumsfeld would not fare very well.

His penchant for micromanaging the deployment and use of the military was evident from the beginning of the campaign in Afghanistan, with dangerously low ceilings on the numbers of American troops that could be deployed there, and a ban on artillery in favor of close air support.

With securing Afghanistan and finding and defeating al-Qaeda still far from complete, the administration diverted its attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

When the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency couldn't find evidence that Saddam posed a real threat, neo-conservatives in the administration began working with their good friend Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress to salt the mine.

Weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's push for nuclear weapons. Chalabi produced so-called Iraqi defectors who revealed it all. No evidence has been found to substantiate the defectors' allegations. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress denies that it knowingly provided defectors who had bad information, but some of the defectors didn't fare well on lie-detector tests. Nevertheless, their tales were widely used by the administration as evidence that war was necessary.

Even worse, perhaps, the administration also accepted Chalabi's assurances that American troops would be welcomed with flower petals by a grateful Iraqi citizenry. That, coupled with Rumsfeld's desire to prove that when it comes to the military, lighter is better, meant there were never enough troops to defeat the bloody insurgency that's surprised Pentagon planners, or even to safeguard supply lines and guard prisoners.

Rumsfeld demanded and got total control of the American effort in Iraq, including the civilian administration and the reconstruction budget. With total control comes total responsibility. So we know where the buck stops when things go wrong in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq, even if those in the administration are in denial.

The 130,000 American troops on the ground today - half of them Army Reserve and National Guard - have done everything asked of them. Our secretary of defense recently described them as "fungible," which the dictionary defines as: interchangeable. Kind of like the parts in an engine.

Of all the descriptions of the American soldier I have ever heard or written - brave, selfless, weary, tired, proud or weeping - I've never heard "fungible."

Seven hundred seventy-four of them have died in Iraq; an additional 121 have died in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They and we deserve an accounting from the civilian leaders who sent them there.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at [email protected]

Rumstud? I did read in the price of loyalty book that Bush has an odd thing about nicknames, but that one is, well, curious as to what prompted it.

To tell the truth, I think what happened was that they were getting heat from all the deaths of US troops and they started whatever they could to get information out of the prisoners. I doubt Bush was kept informed based on various things I have read concerning how he operates, he just states how he wants things to turn out and does not care about the process of how it gets it done.

no more reasons needed
Read this and you will know why Rumsfeld and all Bush adm. must go:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=692852#692852

I am very much afraid that BumbleBeeBoogie will not make the decision that President Bush and/or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will "have to go".

That decision will be made by the voting public on Nov. 2nd, 2004.