Rumsfeld Should Stay

[Matt]

I am very surprised the Times printed this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html

Rumsfeld Should Stay
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

ASHINGTON — Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. But any resignation would only whet their appetite to cut and run. The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on.

Because today's column will generate apoplectic e-mail, a word about contrarian opinion: Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."

One Bush cabinet member paid attention. Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals.

Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.

In last week's apology before the Senate, Rumsfeld assumed ultimate responsibility, as J.F.K. did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The Pentagon chief failed to foresee and warn the president of the danger lurking in the Army's public announcement in January of its criminal investigation into prisoner abuse. He failed to put the nation's reputation ahead of the regulation prohibiting "command influence" in criminal investigations, which protects the accused in courts-martial.

The secretary testified that he was, incredibly, the last to see the humiliating photos that turned a damning army critique by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba into a media firestorm. Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff.

But then Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota rudely badgered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, repeatedly hurling the word "suppression" at him. General Myers had been trying to save the lives of troops by persuading CBS to delay its broadcast of pictures that would inflame resistance. Rumsfeld quieted the sound-bite-hungry politician by reminding him that requests to delay life-threatening reports were part of long military-media tradition.

This was scandal with no cover-up; the wheels of investigation and prosecution were grinding, with public exposure certain. Second only to the failure to prevent torture was the Pentagon's failure to be first to break the bad news: the Taguba report should have been released at a Rumsfeld press conference months ago.

Now every suspect ever held in any U.S. facility will claim to have been tortured and demand recompense. Videos real and fake will stream across the world's screens, and propagandists abroad will join defeatists here in calling American prisons a "gulag," gleefully equating Bush not just with Saddam but with Stalin.

Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to "name, rank, serial number," as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?

The United States shows the world its values by investigating and prosecuting wrongdoers high and low. It is not in our political value system to scapegoat a good man for the depraved acts of others. Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war.

This secretary of defense, who has the strong support of the president, is both effective and symbolic. If he were to quit under political fire, pressure would mount for America to quit under insurgent fire. Hang in there, Rummy! You have a duty to serve in our "long, hard slog."

[lukpac]

I am very surprised the Times printed this...

I'm not. The Times is hardly exclusively liberal. They (along with the Washington Post) printed plenty of BS on the various Clinton scandals, even after much of it had been debunked.

[Rspaight]

Surprised the Times printed a column by one of its marquee columnists? How is that surprising? There are in fact several conservative columnists at the Times, including Will. Sorry if that doesn't fit in to the myth of the "Liberal Media."

In any event, I'm not convinced that getting rid of Rummy would make any difference one way or the other. Bush would just get another neo-con crusader to replace him -- probably Wolfowitz. (Though the confirmation hearings *would* be entertaining.) The rot in this Administration goes far too deep for just replacing one guy to fix anything. Firing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers, Rice, Ashcroft and Rove would be a good start. Or, even better, just voting the whole lot of 'em out in November.

But, for the sake of argument...

Military papers demand Rumsfeld, Myers' resignation

By John Byrne

Today, the Army, Marine, Air Force and Navy Times, civilian-owned papers which are effectively the trade papers of the military, ran editorials calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers.

"General Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would not only have in the United States but around the world," the editorial reads. "On the battlefield, Myers and Rumsfeld's errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence."

The editorial was acquired by CBS and read Sunday by CBS News Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.

"This was not only a failure of leadership at the local command level," it continues. "This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability is essential, even if that means relieving top leaders from duty during a time of war."

Ryan

[Matt]

Surprised the Times printed a column by one of its marquee columnists? How is that surprising? There are in fact several conservative columnists at the Times, including Will. Sorry if that doesn't fit in to the myth of the "Liberal Media."

I agree the Times has conservative columnists, however the Times does have a reputation among conservatives for having a liberal slant in news coverage. I am sure much like the Washington Times is discredited amongst liberals.

In any event, I'm not convinced that getting rid of Rummy would make any difference one way or the other. Bush would just get another neo-con crusader to replace him -- probably Wolfowitz. (Though the confirmation hearings *would* be entertaining.) The rot in this Administration goes far too deep for just replacing one guy to fix anything. Firing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers, Rice, Ashcroft and Rove would be a good start.

I also agree with you about removing Rumsfeld making no difference. Someone else unreleated would be singled out and blamed then.

Or, even better, just voting the whole lot of 'em out in November.

I would be carefull of what you ask for.

I wonder who Kerry will pick for a Veep?

[Rspaight]

I also agree with you about removing Rumsfeld making no difference. Someone else unreleated would be singled out and blamed then.

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of Defense is "unrelated" to the prison abuse scandal?

I wonder who Kerry will pick for a Veep?

I'd say it's Edwards, though Richardson, Bayh and Nelson are still in it. I'd like to see Clark, personally, though I wouldn't be unhappy with Edwards.

Oh, and Bush has now labelled Rummy's incompetent bungling of the Iraq occupation a "superb job" and says we all owe him a "debt of gratitude" for managing to make the Middle East a bigger snafu than it was before and increasing the terrorist threat to America.

Bush praises Rumsfeld

New photo shows dogs, naked Iraqi prisoner
Monday, May 10, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush praised embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday, saying, "Thank you for your leadership. You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror.

"You are doing a superb job. You are a strong secretary of defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude."

Bush delivered his statement at the Pentagon amid the continuing controversy over abuses committed by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib prison and calls for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Despite such calls, aides say Bush's support for Rumsfeld has not wavered.

Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA Director George Tenet were to participate in the private briefing at the Pentagon, and Gen. John Abizaid was expected to join the briefing via satellite.

"The conduct that has come to light is an insult to the Iraqi people and an affront to the most basic standards of decency and morality," Bush said of the scandal.

"One difference between democracies and dictatorships," he said, is that free countries confront such behavior "openly and directly."

Bush also may be bracing for the leaking of more photos -- and perhaps videos -- of the prison abuses. Photos have been trickling out through various media outlets over the past couple of weeks.

The latest photo to surface is included in a New Yorker magazine article by Seymour Hersh this week. The photo shows American guards holding back leashed dogs near a naked prisoner.

The photo is one of 20 pictures Hersh says were taken by a soldier in one of the MP units at the prison.

"[The prisoner's] hands are clasped behind his neck and he is leaning against the door to a cell, contorted with terror, as the dogs bark a few feet away," Hersh writes in the article.

"In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate's leg."

Hersh reports that military commanders did nothing about allegations of abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross until a military policeman turned over a computer disk containing images of prisoners forced to simulate homosexual acts while American soldiers watched.

Appearing on CNN's "American Morning," an attorney for Pfc. Lynndie England said they were "staged" by intelligence officials who were running Abu Ghraib at the time.

England was photographed holding a what appears to be a leash attached to the neck of a naked Iraqi prisoner

"They are psychological operations photos," said attorney Giorgio Ra'Shadd. "Those were instructed and the ones that were not specifically instructed were inferred by the civilian intelligence people who took control."

Another attorney for England, Rose Mary Zapor, said the photo, "is not a picture of our client abusing a prisoner in any way.'"

Last week, the military brought four counts against England.

The charges include committing an indecent act and assaulting Iraqi detainees on multiple occasions.

England, who has returned from Iraq and is now stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is five months pregnant.

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday, Hersh said he learned that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, put U.S. prisons under the command of military intelligence in November and changed procedures that allowed MPs to participate in interrogations.

Hersh claims Abu Ghraib's problems stemmed from a Defense Department thick with patterns of secrecy, disdain for the Geneva Conventions and indifference to the possibility that its plans could be wrong.

"It's not because it's a cover. It's because they don't listen to what they don't want to hear," said Hersh, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his article on the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

Hersh said he believed the military was under pressure last fall to end a steadily rising insurgency -- and that military intelligence officers receiving the pressure from above passed it on to military police standing guard at detention facilities.

Court-martial scheduled

Court-martial proceedings are scheduled for May 19 for a U.S. soldier accused in the prison scandal, a military spokesman said Sunday.

Spc. Jeremy Sivits was charged in March with maltreatment of prisoners, conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and dereliction of duty for not preventing the maltreatment of prisoners, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. military spokesman.

Sivits could face a bad conduct discharge, Kimmitt said. The court-martial will take place at coalition headquarters in Baghdad.

In a New Yorker article last week, Hersh named Sivits as one of seven soldiers facing charges in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The abuse revelations, along with the publication of the graphic photographs from the prison, have prompted international condemnation and apologies from both Bush and Rumsfeld.

A day after apologizing for British soldiers' treatment of some Iraqi prisoners, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he only recently became aware of specific allegations of abuse. He spoke as his defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, prepared to face the House of Commons on Monday to answer questions about alleged abuse by British troops.

Editorial blames failure at top

An editorial appearing Monday in four military-oriented newspapers calls the abuses of Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad "a failure that ran straight to the top" and says accountability in the scandal is essential, "even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war."

"If their staffs failed to alert [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard] Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame too on the chairman and secretary who failed to inform even President Bush," says the editorial to be published in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The four newspapers together constitute the Military Times Media group, a private venture published by Gannett Co., a national newspaper chain. The newspapers cover the military and circulate among the military community.

The editorial was written by the all-civilian staff, though an official with the group told CNN that the editorial's author and one of the editors are veterans.

Interrogation techniques

The Defense Department approved a classified list of interrogation techniques last year for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that were aggressive but only to be used in highly controlled circumstances with approval from high levels of the Bush administration, a Pentagon official said Sunday.

The official said there was "no protocol for disrobing detainees" or taking pictures of them naked.

The official did not know if a similar list was provided for interrogations in Iraq. All detainees in Iraq are supposed to be treated according to the rules and guidelines set down by the Geneva Conventions.

Although he would not give specific examples of the techniques, the official said "the possibility that anybody could have their sleep disrupted or be made to stand for a period of time is not inconsistent with the mission of Gitmo," referring to Guantanamo.

He noted that Guantanamo detainees are believed to be people with knowledge of terrorist activities, so there is a significant effort to get information from them.

Other developments

U.S. lawmakers will privately review more images this week of U.S. troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Sunday. "How much can be made public remains to be seen, but the Pentagon is certainly ... cooperating with us in putting our hearing together," said Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia.

Former POW Jessica Lynch, addressing graduating students Saturday at the West Virginia University Institute of Technology, said prayers should go out to the families of Iraqi prisoners who were mistreated.

[lukpac]

I agree the Times has conservative columnists, however the Times does have a reputation among conservatives for having a liberal slant in news coverage.

It has that reputation, yes, but I'm not sure it's as warrented as conservatives would want to believe.

I would be carefull of what you ask for.

I pose the question then, to FLO's only openly conservative member: what should we liberals be worried about? I mean, I'm not Kerry's biggest fan, but from a liberal perspective, I don't see that much wrong with him. Or, should I say, I don't see much/anything worse than Bush.

Do I think Kerry is some great liberal? Not really. Do I think he's better than Bush? You bet.

[krabapple]

I am very surprised the Times printed this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html

No surprise. The NY Times has been running former Nixon flack Safire's often pompous, occasionally loathsome, and reliably pro-Republican op-eds for decades now. (His 'here's what Ariel Sharon must be thinking' -type columns drive me up a wall.)

The only surprise is that Rummy is facing almost as much pressure from the *right* as from the left, according what I'm reading -- hence Safire's show of solidarity. Note too the George WIll broke ranks with the neocons last week, calling for Bush to 'rethink' his current strategies and goals. *THAT* was a surprising column.

And to compare the NY Times' often-undetectable 'liberal slant' with the Washington Times' dependable function as a conduit for Karl Rove's spin control, is absurd.

[Rspaight]

The only surprise is that Rummy is facing almost as much pressure from the *right* as from the left, according what I'm reading -- hence Safire's show of solidarity.

Yes -- the theory seems to be that ditching Rummy will stamp a big ol' "OLD NEWS" imprint on this whole scandal, so that anyone bringing it up in the future can be shut down with, "What, that tired old non-story? We fired Rumsfeld! Case closed!" It sounds to me like the *really* bad stuff (rape, murder) hasn't really hit the public consciousness yet, since the photos/videos haven't made it out. If you make Rumsfeld the scapegoat and cut him loose now, there won't be a target for future outrage.

Of course, the flip side of that (and perhaps the Bush strategy) is to wait until *all* the crap is out there, and *then* ditch Rummy. If we fire him now, this line of thinking goes, what do we have left to do if the scandal gets even bigger?

To be fair, many on the right are also beginning to recognize that a lot of the blame for the Iraq screwup can be laid at Rummy's feet -- the "on the cheap" mentality, the disdain for military opinion, the failure to communicate, etc. -- and want him out for non-political reasons.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

Note too the George WIll broke ranks with the neocons last week, calling for Bush to 'rethink' his current strategies and goals. *THAT* was a surprising column.

You mean this piece?

Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq

By George F. Will

Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A25

Oh? Who?

Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought:

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration? Note that the clearly implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is "Americans." So the president seemed to be saying that white is, and brown is not, the color of Americans' skin. He does not mean that. But that is the sort of swamp one wanders into when trying to deflect doubts about policy by caricaturing and discrediting the doubters.

Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later said the president meant only that "there are some in the world that think that some people can't be free" or "can't live in freedom." The president meant that "some Middle Eastern countries -- that the people in those Middle Eastern countries cannot be free."

Perhaps that, which is problematic enough, is what the president meant. But what he suggested was: Some persons -- perhaps many persons; no names being named, the smear remained tantalizingly vague -- doubt his nation-building project because they are racists.

That is one way to respond to questions about the wisdom of thinking America can transform the entire Middle East by constructing a liberal democracy in Iraq. But if any Americans want to be governed by politicians who short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing racism to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system.

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush). And about how it is a "myth" that "our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture" because "ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit" (Tony Blair).

Speaking of culture, as neoconservative nation-builders would be well-advised to avoid doing, Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color.

The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation -- our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place such as Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives.

Condoleezza Rice, a political scientist, believes there is scholarly evidence that democratic institutions do not merely spring from a hospitable culture, but that they also can help create such a culture. She is correct; they can. They did so in the young American republic. But it would be reassuring to see more evidence that the administration is being empirical, believing that this can happen in some places, as opposed to ideological, believing that it must happen everywhere it is tried.

Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.

In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that.

Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism.

Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix.

georgewill@washpost.com

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Rspaight]

And now Will says Rumsfeld must go. It sounds like he's really getting torqued.

No Flinching From the Facts

By George F. Will
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; Page A19

Listen to the language. It is always a leading indicator of moral confusion.

The lawyer for a soldier charged in the Iraq prison abuse investigation was explaining a photograph. It showed some Americans standing over a pile of naked Iraqis: "Intelligence officers came into the facility, pulled two men out of their cells, took them away, brought them back with a third prisoner, ordered the MPs to undress all of them, and then started interrogating them, and had them . . . in this position where they're all embracing each other."

"Embracing."

The lawyer's client probably will offer -- this should deepen Americans' queasiness -- the Nuremberg defense: I was only obeying orders. If the abuse was the result of orders -- or of the absence of them -- fault must extend up the chain of command.

So, forgive the lawyer's language. But note what it betokens: a flinching from facts. Americans must not flinch from absorbing the photographs of what some Americans did in that prison. And they should not flinch from this fact: That pornography is, almost inevitably, part of what empire looks like. It does not always look like that, and does not only look like that. But empire is always about domination. Domination for self-defense, perhaps. Domination for the good of the dominated, arguably. But domination.

And some people will be corrupted by dominating. That is why the leaders of empires must be watchful. Very watchful. Donald Rumsfeld is clearly shattered by the corruption he tardily comprehended. Testifying to Congress last week, he seemed saturated with a sadness that bespeaks his deep decency and his horror at the vast injury done to the nation by elements of the department he administers. He knows that he failed the president. And he knows that his extraordinary record of government service -- few public careers, including presidential ones, can match Rumsfeld's -- has been tarnished.

How should he, and we, think about what comes next? Consider an axiom, a principle, two questions and then a second axiom.

The first axiom is: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.

The principle is: The response by the nation's government must express horror, shame and contrition proportional to the evil done to others, and the harm done to the nation, by agents of the government.

Americans are almost certainly going to die in violence made worse in Iraq, and not only there, by the substantial aid some Americans, in their torture of Iraqi prisoners, have given to our enemies in this war. And by the appallingly dilatory response to the certain torture and probable murder committed in that prison.

The nation's response must, of course, include swift and public prosecutions. And the destruction of that prison. And punctilious conformity to legal obligations -- and, now, to some optional procedures -- concerning persons in American custody. But this is not enough.

One question is: Are the nation's efforts in the deepening global war -- the world is more menacing than it was a year ago -- helped or hindered by Rumsfeld's continuation as the appointed American most conspicuously identified with the conduct of the war? This is not a simple call. But being experienced, he will know how to make the call. Being honorable, he will so do.

He knows his Macbeth and will recognize the framing of the second question: Were he to resign, would discerning people say that nothing in his public life became him like the leaving of it?

This nation has always needed an ethic about the resignation of public officials. Such an ethic cannot be codified. It must grow in controlling power from precedent to precedent, as an unwritten common law, distilled from the behavior of uncommonly honorable men and women who understand the stakes. A nation, especially one doing the business of empire, needs high officials to be highly attentive to what is done in their departments -- attentive far down the chain of command, as though their very jobs depended on it.

Finally, the second axiom. It is from Charles de Gaulle: The graveyards are full of indispensable men.

[Matt]

I pose the question then, to FLO's only openly conservative member: what should we liberals be worried about? I mean, I'm not Kerry's biggest fan, but from a liberal perspective, I don't see that much wrong with him. Or, should I say, I don't see much/anything worse than Bush.

Do I think Kerry is some great liberal? Not really. Do I think he's better than Bush? You bet.

With all his flips he could end up to be a flop. Kerry does not strike me as a decisive man or a leader. Why would he be better than Bush? I assume you are referencing the Iraq situation?

[Matt]

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of Defense is "unrelated" to the prison abuse scandal?

No question, he will ultimately be blamed, he is now the scapegoat. I doubt he was directly involved with or would approve of such actions.

[lukpac]

With all his flips he could end up to be a flop. Kerry does not strike me as a decisive man or a leader. Why would he be better than Bush? I assume you are referencing the Iraq situation?

All his flips? How about all of Bush's flips? Just because the right says Bush doesn't flip doesn't make it so.

And as I've previously stated, I'd much rather have someone who's not afraid to change their mind that someone who makes a decision and sticks to it no matter how stupid it may be. What good is decisiveness when you make the wrong decisions?

[Rspaight]

No question, he will ultimately be blamed, he is now the scapegoat. I doubt he was directly involved with or would approve of such actions.

Then why did he accept responsibility? (A rarity in this administration.) Was he there? No. Did he give direct orders? Probably not. Is he responsible? Yes.

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.

Would he have approved? Not publicly, but such behavior is at least implicitly condoned by our refusal to extend Geneva Convention protections to terror suspects. (And remember, a "terror suspect" is whoever the Administration decides is a terror suspect.)

I can't believe that the same procedures aren't (or at least weren't) SOP in Gitmo.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Why would he be better than Bush? I assume you are referencing the Iraq situation?

Iraq is only the most glaring example of Bush's blundering. Kerry would be a huge improvement over Bush in:

- Foreign relations/diplomacy
- Economic policy
- Environmental policy
- Education policy
- National security
- Civil liberties
- Gay rights
- Church/state issues
- Judicial appointments
- Social Security/Medicare reform

Take your pick, really.

Ryan