Rumsfeld Shock Absorber
 

Anyone think there is an obvious effort to pass all the blame for the iraqi torture onto Donald in order to keep Bush looking clean?

Re: Rumsfeld Shock Absorber
 

No I think it's more the case that the Anti Bush crowd hates Rumsfeld and would like nothing better than to get rid of him.

uhh... no. i'll go with no on this one.

It's not unusual for one of the President's men to throw himself on a PR grenade.

onetime2, the Anti-Bush crowd hates Bush too, and would probably rather get rid of him, instead of just cleaning out his advisors.

I think the only person more hated in the Bush admin than Bush himself is Ashcroft.
He's scary crazy.

And don't forget about Wolfowitz. Where exactly has he disappeared to.

lol... i really don't recall Wolfowitz appearing enough beforehand to gauge whether or not he has disappeared.

But it's obvious that they have no ability to get rid of Bush right now. So, taking out one of his key advisors in a very public way and using it as a focal point for the election is an understandable strategy.

Re: Re: Rumsfeld Shock Absorber
 

The news reports I'm hearing are talking about Senior Republicans on both Armed Services Committees being *very* upset. If that leads to him being removed, I can't say - but getting it from both barrels can't improve his prospects.

The blame may very well lie with him and if so, I think the president should allow him to resign.

While I do think there are Democrats who are intent on using this shameful incident as a political tool (and don't think there aren't any Republicans would do the same) I think the vast majority of politicians and regular citizens just want to know what the hell happened, who knew about it and who authorized it. I don't think this spells the end of Rumsfeld's tenure as S.O.D. unless it turns out he had knowledge of these incidents or even approved them. It is, however, interesting that people on both sides the aisle are unsure whether he should stay.

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld Shock Absorber
 

I've yet to hear from any Republicans calling for his removal. All those calls have come from the press and Democrats.

I agree that if there is something to blame on him he should go. I have not yet heard any significant proof that he sat on reliable reports without instigating investigations.

I don't quite get why Rumsfeld is being held accountable.

Did he issue an order to humiliate the prisoners? I don't think he did.

If the soldiers who did it acted on their own free will, why should Rumsfeld issue an apology? I'd expect his apology to consist of, "I'm sorry those soldiers chose to treat the prisoners with such disrespect." and nothing more.

This trend regarding "blame" is getting very f'n annoying. Punish the soldiers responsible, realize that it was no one's fault but their own, and move on. Simple.

It's not that Rumsfeld is being blamed for what happened, it's that he knew about these abuses months ago and apparently kept this knowledge from Bush. Bush's anger seems to stem from Rumsfeld's failure to inform him of these abuses. Basically, Bush is pissed - and rightly so - that he had to hear about this from the media instead of from his Secretary of Defense.

No.

Moving on to the next thread. :)

My 2 cents-

Bush is appologizing like a mad man because he knows more about this then us. This is the tip of the iceberg... more details will be reported and the media dogs and the anti war crowd will attack Rummy and Bush, and rightly so. But we know how in America everything goes too far... this will go through the mud and the media and the left will compare this to Auschwitz and Rumsfeld will be the the sacrificial lamb and lose his job and then it will all be forgotten in 4 months.

If it's true that this IS the first he's hearing of it- which I don't believe and preemptively call FLAMING BULLSHIT on- then there is no "blame" being "pushed" onto Rumsfeld.

It is his job to inform the President of such things, and I think these types of activities in his (the U.S.'s) military would be pretty high on the "list of things to tell the Prez".

I think it's only a matter of time before we find out he knew perfectly well all along- meanwhile, he's been lying about NOT knowing. Makes no sense otherwise.

My question is what about the pictures I'm sure we haven't seen.

Known about this since Jan. yet just now doing something, solely because the pictures came out now. But it's all the Dems. fault because we are in an election year and they are misconstruing the pictures. And this group wants to lead us for another 4 years.

I love all the Bush-lovers. It's like every story that gets into the media is a plot against Bush.

Wake up, smell the coffee, Bush supporter or not. If you think for 2 seconds if Clinton, or Regan, or any other president was in office, and these stories would not be reported with Bush's name replaced as (insert ex-presidents name here) then your just another babbling republican fool. All of them would be crucified by the media, just like Bush is.

Yes, I'm republican, but how about for once seeing the face value of what's going on here -- torture, inhumane acts from American people. Exactly what we DON'T stand for. The only thing you can come up with is it's "Anti-Bush". Come on people. It doesn't matter who's there, what time, what place, it's war, and Bush is in office, he's going to take the heat.

You know, not everything in politics is about conspiracy theories. Some of it is factual and justified. IMO, even though I'm Republican, I think it's completely justified the Bush administration takes a well deserved ass-ramming for this one.

I can see considering some media reports "over the top" but seriously, what else would you expect to happen?

In the military the commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his/her troops.

Well, the "the President is very angry" thing has been bullshit in the past. I recall that some Reagan aide did something scandalous, and there was much made by Reagan's staff of a meeting where Reagan "took him to the woodshed" and ragged him out. Only it never really happened that way, as it turned out. Reagan was a truly amiable guy, and apparently didn't have it in him to do that sort of thing. It was just a story that the aides put together to let the public know that the president had "punished" the miscreant, that justice was done, and they could now go back to reading the comics page.

So "unnamed sources' Bush's team can pass the word that he's angry with Rumsfeld, but we'll never really know. Unfortunately, you can't really take anybody's word at face value in politics when the spinning and damage control is under way, which it is.

I think the most damaging thing to Rumsfeld's credibility was his response to Sen. McCain's (yay!) question: who was in charge? Who gave the orders? Where did they come from on the chain of command. He neither answered nor said that he didn't know. He just waffled. Looks very, very bad, especially on a guy who's built his whole image on being competent, self-assured, and in control (ie, "Don't doubt me, I know what I'm doing.")

I was trying to be as non-partisan as I could with my response earlier. Basically, I see the situation as this: Either Bush was informed of the abuses and said nothing hoping it would never come to public light or he has no control over his staff and they act on their own. I'm not sure which bothers me more.

And their reasoning for not putting a stop to it when they first found out? Please. Allow me to paraphrase, "We knew it was going on and we were so disgusted with it we chose to allow it to continue so they wouldn't know we were investigating it.":rolleyes:

You seem to think that this type of crap is something new, something that's easily controlled. It's not. People get out of hand in these situations and no one can baby sit them 24/7 to make sure they're treating prisoners correctly. I don't give a shit if it's Clinton, Kerry, or you in the White House, the calls for Rumsfeld's ouster are motivated purely by politics just as they would be if it was Clinton's people. There's been no evidence yet that Rumsfeld handled the accusations improperly, no proof he allowed them to continue, no proof of a cover up, etc, etc, etc and everyone is jumping the gun and calling for his head. Ask yourself who has been calling for him to resign? If you don't think it has to do with the election then there's nothing more we need to talk about.

What are you talking about, onetime?

The issue I have a problem is that Rumsfield was alerted to this last year and evidently didn't put the boot down--actually responding is a lot different than easily controlling something.

I don't quite see how you make a connection between Rumsfield resigning and Bush being re-elected. As for who is calling for his head?

Anyone who is interested in demonstrating to the world we don't take kindly to this kind of shit--regardless of his personal responsibility. Yeah, symbolism sucks sometimes, but that's why the leaders of organizations get so much payola--they get the shaft when shit hits the fan.

People from both sides of the aisle are pissed over this and what it has done to our international relations. Even the Red Cross is coming out with some pretty harsh criticsm. Is everyone part of the liberal conspiracy to undermine Bush? Or is it even remotely possible to your mind that criticism is based on the fact that someone's head needs to roll in order to illustrate our collective disgust with the actions of our collective body--the military?

Please point to how he "Didn't put the boot down?" Do you know what the response was to the accusations? Prior to the story breaking weren't the people involved under investigation with some being reprimanded and/or transferred? Seems that the military was taking the steps it needed to. And yet you still seem to think he failed to follow up on it.

If you can't see how forcing Rumsfeld to resign or to be fired as a result of a "scandal" would impact the election campaign then there's not much point in trying to explain it. While people are pissed on both sides of the aisle it's not solely directed at Rumsfeld and I've still yet to hear Republicans calling for his removal.

As this develops, I think it will certainly lose Bush the election, I dont think sacking Rumsfeld can protect Bush from the fall out, so they may as well all just keep a united front, the whole crowd will probably have to be sacrificed by the Republican party in order to gave a chance in the 2008 election.

Isn't he the guy who lost an election to a dead guy?

Without a doubt, members of the U.S. armed forces committed vile, criminal acts upon prisoners in their custody. It appears that the concept of "softening the prisoners" was a widely accepted principle, and if it turns out Rumsfeld knew about it he must go. Bush is Commander in Chief and must deal with the concept that the leader is responsible for those he or she leads. While I do not personally hold Rumsfeld or Bush directly responsible(at least at this time), the fact that these attrocities occured under their watch and that it seems impossible or at least improbable that the administration just found out about this, I have yet another reason to want this Administration out of office.

If you would like to join John Kerry in encouraging Secretary Rumsfeld to resign, go to:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld.php

I don't know the response to the allegations. I haven't read anything so far that suggests reprimands were taking place before the media broke the story.

Rumsfield testified he wasn't even sure of what the allegations or actions were. He admitted he hadn't even read a report of them from two months ago. The Red Cross is stating they knew about such abuses and alerted the military commanders and the pentagon over a year ago.

All of these things indicate to me that he didn't "put the boot down."

And even now, where are the soldiers? I only know of the woman. She is confined to her barracks. That's certainly not putting any boot down either. Minimizing the atrocities isn't putting the boot down, to my mind either.

Perhaps instead of bickering with me you could produce some evidence that he actually did something to show the world how seriously he took this.

Obviously, nobody did enough. They may very well have known, and even attempted to stop it, if so....they failed. This would be but another "mistake" by the Bush administration. I once tried to list the Major mistakes they have made, and couldn't keep up .
In any other industry, government, buisiness, or organization, this level of blunder, and ineptitude would get many people fired. In this light, I would say it is time to clean house.
We can all speculate as to the level of knowledge, and action available to the administration, but as they have decided to remain pathetically silent when it comes to public information, I am forced to "guess" at the motivations, and reasoning behind the actions, or inactions. This is the reason so many people ditrust these guys.
The Bush administration has forced me (and many others) to draw extremely negative conclusions about the character of our current government, and that pisses me off.

The whole system was working. Soldiers were removed from their positions, the ones involved with the murders were put on trial with one already being sentenced. The system of checks and balances that would have prevented the abuse failed but from all indications I've seen the justice system kicked in once the allegations were known to have some foundation.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...376AAC027D.htm