[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
He should resign because he's a war-mongering dickhead.
[/QUOTE]
^
Agreed. I hope that he faces a worse humiliation than those prisoners.
I, too, cast my vote as a “yes.” Not gleefully though.
From Rumsfeld’s opening statement to Congress.
** "Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in recent days there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility for the terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility. " **
And this:
** "Let me be clear: 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. " **
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5077025&pageNumber=0
On both scores, “accountability” and “failure of cognition”, he must resign. Certain things are beyond the control of human beings to prevent from happening. The things that happened here are not beyond the control of human beings. Further, the potential for torture and inhumanity being perpetrated in prisons (here in the US and especially in battlefield conditions like Iraq) are clearly foreseeable. Clearly, Rumsfeld relegated the issue of insuring humane treatment of prisoners to an unimportant one if he considered it at all. For people at the bottom of the ladder to even conceive that what they were doing might be OK indicates that the people at the top of the ladder were not sending a contrary message down the chain of command.
Rumsfeld’s failing has severely damaged Bush, has damaged the reputation and honor of the US military, and has damaged the chances to successfully pull-off a very dangerous and very difficult mission.
At the top of the accountability ladder, of course, sits Bush. It is his watch even more so than Rumsfelds. This is a clear failure of Bush’s management style and the relative disengagement he has from day to day events. If you’re going to adopt a Reagan-like management style, you had better communicate very well to your top level team the broad principles which you expect them to place at the highest level of importance. Something broke here. It’s not good at all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Rumsfeld's failing has severely damaged Bush, has damaged the reputation and honor of the US military, and has damaged the chances to successfully pull-off a very dangerous and very difficult mission.
At the top of the accountability ladder, of course, sits Bush. It is his watch even more so than Rumsfelds. This is a clear failure of Bush's management style and the relative disengagement he has from day to day events. If you're going to adopt a Reagan-like management style, you had better communicate very well to your top level team the broad principles which you expect them to place at the highest level of importance. Something broke here. It's not good at all.
[/QUOTE]
Good :) I am actually happy to see the damage to Rummy and Co. I hope more Americans will join me for a regime change in Nov.
Myvoice,
I voted for resignation largely on the same theories that you have outlined. I would add one thing to the "cognition" section. Rumsfeld did not fail to recognize the problem. The military was well in process, and proceded ahead quickly, particularly given the normal speed of the government. Rumsfeld failed to judge the EXPLOSIVE nature of the revelations. He was reading in black and white of a report. He completely miscalculated the visual impact of the pictures. THEN, even when he learned of the pictures, and had Meyers try to delay the CBS show, he did nothing to diffuse the impact of the pictures, and thier eventual release. Even today he is not as forthright and humble as one in his position should be. His only hope entering today was to eat crow, and while he issued the apology, he is taking just a nibble, not a big bite.
Much like every other dark day in the US, it is not the crime but the cover-up which is the most damning. This was not covered up, but the public ramifications were not diffused enough to mitigate the damage. The problems were not dealt with at the first whiff, the firestorm was fully engaged before the depth of the damage was realized.
Rummy says there are more photos and videos!
Rumsfeld will resign on Monday.
OG:
I don't frankly see any indication of cover-up involved in this episode. This statement you make sounds much more accurate to me.
** "The problems were not dealt with at the first whiff, the firestorm was fully engaged before the depth of the damage was realized." **
You and I and other American Guppies have seen the accusations of "torture" thrown out so many times since the invasion of Afghanistan that ** WE ** would have realized the "depth of the damage" that would come from this firestorm. America gets accused of Nazi-like torture for putting a freaking hood over some guy's face during transport for goodness sakes.
What was Rumsfeld thinking: "Gee, I wonder what the reaction will be to soldiers hooking electrodes onto a prisoner's testacles. Hmm.... let's carefully consider what people will think about forced masturbation and forced (simulated/real) blow jobs among naked Iraqi prisoners."
D*mn. These things are not "close calls" subject to interpretative analysis based upon context.
Bush firing Rummy? next ppl will ask whether he will sack Cheney..
I mean those guys run the place he is just kinda there..how can he do anything
MV,
I did not mean to imply there was a cover-up, simply invoking a saying that implies that what you do after the fact is almost as important as the crime.
In a way, I agree that the chicken littling, (we see a great deal of it around here) helps to desensitize one to the real allegations. That part of Rumsfelds presentation makes a lot of sense, that we (the US) have been accused of untolled numbers of crimes for which there is no evidence, and are simply lies concocted to inflame the ignorant, and those who do not have the faith in the US that the US citizens have.
There are a few threads of good news here. Not a single soul has tried to deny or avoid responsibility. Everybody is stepping up to the plate and stating their revulsion and horror that these actions ever happened. Nobody is ducking and running. Democrats are enjoying b***h slapping Rumsfeld. Ultimately Rumsfeld is a lightning rod, and will electrocute anyone around him. There will be so many ten foot pole marks all over him that he will no longer be funtional in his job. No other cabinet member has rushed to his defense, and Bushs' claim of support is almost proforma.
Rumsfeld is hung out to dry, all by himself.
Rumsfeld saying there are more pictures, videos, and there will be more suprises. Oh joy.
Now wait a second...
I know this prison outrage is what finally broke the camels back, but it is not Rummy's sole offense and it certainly should not be thought of as his firing offense.
This episode is only what makes what was already a stinging fact ever more clear: Rummy was lost in his own world. He should be fired for gross mismanagement of the Iraq war (I'd argue the greater WOT as well), of which this prison thing is only a single component.
If Rummy is sacked and Abu Ghuraib goes down as his crime it would be very wrong. The buck stops at the top, but that can't mean the entire chain of command must always be deemed guilty and removed. Not on a single offense without direct culpability. That would set a bad precedent. The next time anyone's subordinates screw up the oppo will refer to this to demand a cleansing of the ranks. That can't always be the case. Again, Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for Abu Ghuraib, but not directly so. He should be sacked because he too often indirectly screwed over the country's war effort. It is the sum total of his actions that require his removal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chota: *
I said no.
No he alone should not be sacked, what would it gain in the greater sense of things?
There's enough blame for countless shoulders here. It's almost an insult to single out only one bastrd out of many.
They all go sooner or later. But to suggest removing just Rumpfeel will appease anyone but the most gullible is foolish.
[/QUOTE]
True. But the reason Rumsfeld must go now is that his continued presence makes correcting that time-sensitive problem of Iraq all the more difficult. The American war effort needs new management before things pass the point of no return (for America, not Iraq).
All those other guilty parties will face their day. The soldiers will be put in court, though we could have more confidence in justice working there without Rummy. And the politicians will face their trial in November. But the situation in Iraq and the US military cannot wait until November (actually January).
Also, when we say Rummy we are referring to his entire personal staff as well.. Wolfie, Feith, etc ]
OG, no one is enjoying this.
How this administration reacts regarding Rumsfeld will be very telling of them but the act of simply removing Rumsfeld is not enough. A deep investigation into these war crimes is necessary.
Why were the calls of the Red Cross, which reported abuse to the United States well before January 2004 routinely ignored? The broad scope of abuse makes it apparently that these acts were not isolated incidents indicating that these acts were at the very least ignored (a crime itself) and at the very worst supported and/or order by higher echelons within the military. These incidents have now more than ever made it imperative that the U.S. seek the help of the UN in regards to Iraq.
The removal of Rumsfeld must simply be the beginning rather than the climatic end in correcting this shameful period.
UTD,
I don't think the act of scapegoating Rumsfeld alone will accomplish anything. The crimes WILL be investigated, to the point where it will be overkill. Every congressional committee will want a piece of this, it will become a morass.
You are absolutely right, the Red Cross should have been a telling tale. As I understand it, according to the Geneva conventions, the Red Cross has inspection rights. They have an agreement with the occupying power that their findings, recommendations and observations remain secret. ONLY if the problems are not corrected, will the Red Cross go public with accusations. For example, the Guantanamo facility despite it's controversy, has only had complaints by the Red Cross that the legal process of the ultimate disposition of the detainees is problematic. I will check, but I do not remember any huge outcry by the Red Cross.
Spoon:
I would hope that an "entire cleansing of the ranks" does NOT occur.
The guys who need to be punished are the ones engaging in the activities and those superiors who knew what was going on but did not stop it or otherwise tacitly approved of it. That punishment starts from the bottom and works it's way up a little in the chain of command.
Then, you take out the top (Rumsfeld) whose failings in this episode have been discussed above. You mention taking out his entire personal staff which I don't agree with. A thorough investigation will reveal how much of the bottom of the chain of command is punished and how deeply you need to cut at the top. Whoever is then put at the top must make it clear that those in the middle of the chain of command must elevate humane prisoner treatment to the top of their priority list. They in turn must make sure this occurs at the bottom.
Unlike you, I think it is ** this ** episode that must be made the reason for Rumsfeld stepping down. I don't share your view that there has been a gross mismanagement of the Iraq war. I think Rumsfeld has been a positive force and done a pretty damn admirable job heading the DOD. The message that needs to be sent is that regardless of how well you do a whole lot of things, you will not serve in our defense department if you cannot assure that people under your control treat others humanely and in conformance with International conventions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
You are absolutely right, the Red Cross should have been a telling tale. As I understand it, according to the Geneva conventions, the Red Cross has inspection rights. They have an agreement with the occupying power that their findings, recommendations and observations remain secret. ONLY if the problems are not corrected, will the Red Cross go public with accusations. For example, the Guantanamo facility despite it's controversy, has only had complaints by the Red Cross that the legal process of the ultimate disposition of the detainees is problematic. I will check, but I do not remember any huge outcry by the Red Cross.
[/QUOTE]
Have to remember though that the Red Cross didn't provide any outcry during the Holocaust either.. and it wasn't simply because Hitler was so tricky. The Red Cross is a bureaucracy, it has its crippling dysfunctions like every other.
One thing I caught in Rummy's testimony today (didn't catch much of it) was DR's blatant misleading (lie) after a softball question from one of the Republicans. He tried to explain that the ICRC does not disclose its findings because it is imperative that it be allowed into those countries who routinely abuse human rights, the really bad guys, the ones who use torture for.. you get the point. He said that if they disclose their information those dictatorships then wouldn't allow them access.
That's utter BS. Those dictatorships will deny access whenever they damn well please. Disclosures or no. It is because the ICRC does not want to be dragged into political feuds that they do not disclose such.. at least that's their reason. That means they are afraid of losing access from Western countries. They are afraid of being labelled partisans and being rejected on the grounds that they are no longer neutral. That is a concern found only in democracies, not dictatorships. So, Rummy is still full of ****.
Spoon,
"He tried to explain that the ICRC does not disclose its findings because it is imperative that it be allowed into those countries who routinely abuse human rights"
It is my understanding that this was the agreement 60 years ago when the Geneva conventions were formulated. The Red Cross is not a media outlet. It DOES prefer quiet cooperation, and to let others do the bashing. Rumsfeld is technically correct.
Sections of the Red Cross summary report were published by the WSJ this week. The Red Cross immediately protested the disclosure. Somewhere along the line they made the decision to operate under the radar as the only way to accomplish what no other organization can....
SHOULD he resign?
LOL, you have a thread on that? This guy started a war to remove Iraq of Saddam Hussein -anybody can go on the internet to see a video of him shaking Hussein’s hand 20 years ago selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran. The man is American hypocrisy, arrogance and blatant abuse of the rest of the world personified.
Rumsfeld a person and a character we all know of very well. Well at least almost of us.
I would strongly go for a YES since he has failed clearly and then statements of him like "He saw the pics only some dayz ago" "He heard something about the pics but never realize the importance"...lies, excuses....etc.etc. What it ever be!
These r arguements good for a kiddo to not be punished but not for a DEFENCE SEC. of any STATE whatsoever and that especially of A DEMOCRACY.
the sort of hate rumsfeld generates from muslims is quite unparallal. so it is a bit redundant to ask this question just focussing on prison scandal. if this question was asked one month or one year ago, the over-whelming response from gupshup would be similar. 90% saying 'yes'.
not only rumsfeld, but wolfowitz, rice and ashcroft.. all should go. no scandal required.
Let’s not lose sight of what this is about, this war was illegal, the invasion had no clear reason, it is brutal and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi innocents.
A good analogy would be the following:
A pack of wild rabid dogs is introduced by a handler into a school playground, numerous children are mauled and killed a few dogs then urinate on the living and there is public outrage about who is responsible for the dogs who urinated on the children. The deaths of the children are ignored and seen as a separate issue
Rumsfeld is not the issue; the whole invasion is the issue.
Chota, the issue here is Rumsfeld because he is in charge of the pentagon and the entire military campaign and he pushed the US administration into the war. Its the Americans themselves who are asking for his resignation, well some of them at least. He was unable to satisfy even the republican senators on key questions during the senate hearings two days ago. The question is how much did he know about the prisoner abuse, what actions he took, why he didnt take Bush and Congress into confidence early, why he failed to disclose this to Congress until CBS dropped the bomb on TV.
5Abi,
Don’t fall into the trap of advocating the ‘scape-goating’ of an ideology, Kerry is pro-war, so are a lot of other Americans not in the Pentagon.
Let’s get to the root of the problems, not the split ends.
This should not be about communication between Bush and others; this should be about illegally endorsed murder and the American publics’ zeal for it.
My analogy still holds, let's address 'all' the dog handlers and the crowd who stood by and cheered it all on.
Why is the realisation of their own evil actions such a grudual dawning event, where elsewhere in the world is was felt as sharp as a knife, let's address why that is.