Bush blasts Rumsfeld

Hi Paul:

I don't think the problem lies in the technicality of whether or not these people were POWs. The simple fact is that the US is supposed to be better than this, and the mistreatment of these prisoners is going to do more to help the Al Qaeda recruiting drive than anything Bin Laden could have done. This could prove to be a major setback in the war on terror, and the punishment for the people involved, and those responsible for overseeing them, must be swift, severe and public.

You can talk legal all you want to, but what we did to those prisoners, regardless of their status, was just wrong. Aside from the significant legal issues, this raises a host of problems on a regional and global scale.

For it to have any palliative effect in world opinion, punishment is going to have to be swift, harsh, and public. Pieces of paper put into folders in a Pentagon basement isn't going to do the job. It might help to to fire Rumsfeld now, and leave the lower ranking officers and intelligence people for the new guy to deal with with a semblance of impartiality.

But I don't expect bush's handlers to let him do that.

Dan

Hi Paul,

1) - "the DoD (to its credit) blew the whistle on itself by making the initial press release on this last weekend." - Not true. Two separate newsmen had been sitting on it for at least two weeks and kept being stalled by the DoD. One of them finally broke the story. (no link, from my TV watching,)

2) - A small wording quibble: "Department of Defense knew something was wrong as early as January." You might have said: no later than January.

3) - Then: your uniformed combatants v POW treatment hedge is not the point here.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said and with your analysis. Can't really play catch-up and drag your heels at the same time. Makes one look stupid, if nothing else.

...was 'If you want someone with you at the crash landing; make darn sure they are on-board at take off'.

Bosses don't like surprises.

And if those idiots in Iraq didn't send this up the line when it first surfaced, it would appear they didn't recognize the importance of it, and this just might indicate a problem with the mind-set of the Chain of Command.

Hi, Del.

I don't have a link, but I heard a report on the radio today saying that a Pentagon spokesman explained the delay in dealing with the abuse issue as being because (close paraphrase -- best I remember it) "we were mainly concerned with the growing violence against our troop, and alleged abuse to prisoners was below our radar." Sheesh!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

It was brought to military attention shortly before Christmas. Investigations were started to determine first if the allegations were real.

In January (16th I think) it was briefed to the press that abuse allegations were being investigated and that charges had been filed on 6 military personnel.

Then Gen Taguba's investigation into the background was started. His report reached the pentagon in march, but there were still 4 other investigations pending.

As (apparently) Taguba's report said nothing substantially different from the January briefings (Other than details), no big thing was made of it. There are still charges pending against the individuals actually doing the abuse and the investigations up the Chain of Command are still pending.

No judgement on my part as to whether anyone was actually hiding something or if the media just got the pictures (BTW, How?) and on the heels of the coffin pictures decided to "break" a story that had been simmering for 4 months.

Bo

I first heard in Nov '03, via an e-mail from in-country,
that there were allegations (rumors) of abuse. And then
in Jan '04 one of the news agencies indicated that the
talk of abuse was being looked into. Then nothing else
until the pictures came out.

I think most of us put the word abuse away with the thought
that someone probably punched out someone else. In a country
where we can do no right, and they can do no wrong, it
took the pictures to jar us into reality.

But it seems to me that the official knowledge from at
least Nov '03, was much more detailed than just the word
abuse. It had to be. How much was funneled up-stream,
and on whose whose desk it got tossed to the hold basket
pending further results from the inquiry, we might never
know.

But at this point, on Monday morning again, with the pictures,
we are quick to criticize that the President, and others,
not knowing details with the ramifications that were present
in this story.

Maybe a lesson learned here, at least i would hope. As I
said earlier, if you want someone with you at the crash landing,
make darn sure they are on-board at take-off.

Your link reads: "Bush blasts Rumsfeld." but I don't see much blasting going on in the article you linked to. The only mention of Bush and Rumsfeld is this:

## When asked whether President Bush wants Rumsfeld to stay in his job, White House spokesman Scott McClellan replied: "Absolutely."
"The president greatly appreciates the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld and all our men and women in the military who are doing an outstanding job," McClellan said. "The president has great confidence in the job Secretary Rumsfeld is doing and he appreciates his service."
...
In a private meeting between Rumsfeld and President Bush on Wednesday, Bush told Rumsfeld he was "not happy" that he learned about the photos by watching television, a senior administration official told CNN. ##

There IS, however, a interesting banner at the top of the page:
## BREAKING NEWS - President Bush says he is sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of U.S. troops. Details soon. ##

First time for everything, I guess. <a herf = Ed's frozen hell pic>