What a tangled web we weave America, what a tangled web. This abuse scandal is unnecessary and was to be expected. The reality it seems is one of dire consequences and ineptitude within the military echelons in the US. Donald Rumsfeld as shown knew about the abuse and did nothing. I think Kerry is on the ball when he says that Rumsfeld should resign. The already soiled reputation of the US and her military are on the line. If Bush is serious about his "apologies" he knows what to do, some big heads have to start rolling. The US military's actions in Iraq have given groups like Al Q huge amounts of popular support; sadly for the US the reality is simple. The US invading Iraq illegally, torturing, killing, and sexually abusing prisoners, virtually destroying a city in Fallujah, and American arrogance prove to the Islamic world that Al Q has a point. The US is in a dangerous predicament, the experiment in Iraq seems doomed to failure, democracy or not. What do we expect when you fight a war fought based on lies, and ideology not a reality. So where are the flowers now Donald?
"Win the peace"...
- Thread starter Undecided
- Start date
What a tangled web we weave America, what a tangled web. This abuse scandal is unnecessary and was to be expected. The reality it seems is one of dire consequences and ineptitude within the military echelons in the US. Donald Rumsfeld as shown knew about the abuse and did nothing. I think Kerry is on the ball when he says that Rumsfeld should resign. The already soiled reputation of the US and her military are on the line. If Bush is serious about his "apologies" he knows what to do, some big heads have to start rolling. The US military's actions in Iraq have given groups like Al Q huge amounts of popular support; sadly for the US the reality is simple. The US invading Iraq illegally, torturing, killing, and sexually abusing prisoners, virtually destroying a city in Fallujah, and American arrogance prove to the Islamic world that Al Q has a point. The US is in a dangerous predicament, the experiment in Iraq seems doomed to failure, democracy or not. What do we expect when you fight a war fought based on lies, and ideology not a reality. So where are the flowers now Donald?
I actually heard Lieberman on CNN today talking about how, while Bush didn't apologize, his whole attitude and presentation was one of regret, and thereby constituted an apology.
I was smoking a bowl; I couldn't help myself--I threw my lighter at the television and yelled, "Get out of the Senate!"
Which updates the list now to three reasons why Nader shouldn't be blamed for 2000:
(1) Al Gore
(2) Illegal voter-reg cancellations in Florida
(3) Joe Lieberman - As was evidenced by his colleagues' performances in the 2002 election, there is no reason to vote for a fake Republican when a real one is on the other side of the ticket
The Joementum of the Iraqi Bush Adventure aside, however, we see that the people whose daily lives are affected a little more directly have a different perspective on what apologies sound like:
• "My Army is shamed by this, my Army is embarrassed by this. On behalf of my Army I apologize for what those soldiers did to your citizens. It was reprehensible and unacceptable. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, U.S. Army
• "I would like to apologize for our nation and for our military for the small number of leaders and soldiers that have committed unauthorized and possibly illegal acts on the detained here at Abu Ghraib" Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, U.S. Army
In the meantime, check out the headline:
• ABC News/KATC. "President Bush and Commander of Coalition Prisons Apologizes for Abuse of Iraqi Inmates." See http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/050504_nw_bush_apologizes.html
See Also
• Reuters. "U.S. Jail Chief Apologizes to Iraq Over Abuse." May 5, 2004. See http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5048946
Further Reading
• Kaplan, Fred. "Why Bush Didn't Apologize." Slate.com. May 5, 2004. See http://slate.msn.com/id/2100015/
I was smoking a bowl; I couldn't help myself--I threw my lighter at the television and yelled, "Get out of the Senate!"
Which updates the list now to three reasons why Nader shouldn't be blamed for 2000:
(1) Al Gore
(2) Illegal voter-reg cancellations in Florida
(3) Joe Lieberman - As was evidenced by his colleagues' performances in the 2002 election, there is no reason to vote for a fake Republican when a real one is on the other side of the ticket
The Joementum of the Iraqi Bush Adventure aside, however, we see that the people whose daily lives are affected a little more directly have a different perspective on what apologies sound like:
• "My Army is shamed by this, my Army is embarrassed by this. On behalf of my Army I apologize for what those soldiers did to your citizens. It was reprehensible and unacceptable. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, U.S. Army
• "I would like to apologize for our nation and for our military for the small number of leaders and soldiers that have committed unauthorized and possibly illegal acts on the detained here at Abu Ghraib" Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, U.S. Army
In the meantime, check out the headline:
• ABC News/KATC. "President Bush and Commander of Coalition Prisons Apologizes for Abuse of Iraqi Inmates." See http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/050504_nw_bush_apologizes.html
See Also
• Reuters. "U.S. Jail Chief Apologizes to Iraq Over Abuse." May 5, 2004. See http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5048946
Further Reading
• Kaplan, Fred. "Why Bush Didn't Apologize." Slate.com. May 5, 2004. See http://slate.msn.com/id/2100015/
I fear that this more then merely the abuse and deaths of Iraqi prisoners. This has translated into a confused state of affairs in Washington and Baghdad. The sad reality seems to be a state of disenfranchised, used, and indifferent persons in Iraq in relation to the US' plans in Iraq (benevolent or not). Iraq has turned into a tyranny of power, a country whose future is all too much in doubt, and not in the hands of the Iraqi people proper. No one likes the new constitution; the interim council is let’s face it, its a puppet regime to the US. This much vaunted June 30th deadline means what? The new Iraqi “government” (if I dare stretch the meaning the word that much) does not seem to have any power, they can’t even pass their own laws post-June. The US is setting itself for a disaster if the transition is not real. It will be as effective as the Soviet sponsored gov’t in Afghanistan which was overthrown as soon as the USSR left. Contrary to belief of some, America can't win Iraq merely because America, because it’s is big and powerful, that hasn't stopped this rapid decline in morale, and expectations in Iraq. It seems the more and more this "war" drags on the less and less ambitious the plan for Iraq becomes. The ideological fervor of those heady days in March 2003 seems to be all but eroded to a shell of its former self.
But What About the Iraqis?
Bush: "I told His Majesty . . . I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi people."
The headlines aren't quite right; the News McNuggets smell spoiled. President Bush continues to flee from an apology to the Iraqi people.
After going on Arab television and failing to explicitly apologize, the President's advisers rushed to express his apologies in the aftermath. Before the President's remarks hit the air, American generals made explicit apologies on behalf of the U.S. Army.
Let's go to the Big Board:
• CNN.com. "Bush 'sorry for humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners." May 6, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
2001921436_webbush06.html
• Friedman, Thomas. "Restoring Our Honor." New York Times, May 6, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06FRIE.html
• Froomkin, Dan.. "Bush's Reluctance to Apologize." Washington Post.May 6, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6394-2004May6.html
• Seattle Times (AP). "Bush formally apologizes for abuse of Iraqi prisoners." May 6, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
• Stout, David. "Bush Says He's Sorry for Abuse of Iraqis, Then Backs Rumsfeld." New York Times, May 7, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CND-RUMS.html
• WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush, Jordanian King Discuss Iraq, Middle East." May 6, 2004. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040506-9.html
The big scandal seems to be the headlines coming out of Washington, D.C. First of all, let's start with an excerpt of yesterday's (May 5) press briefing with Scott McClellan, as provided by Froomkin in his article:
In addition to Generals Kimmett and Miller, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice also expressed executive apologies.
So we turn to the President.
What is the problem with apologizing explicitly to the people of Iraq? Because despite what the headlines suggest, Bush's public (e.g. formal) apology to the Iraqi people consists of the following:
President Bush's formal apology to the Iraqis is given privately to King Abdullah II of Jordan, and then described publicly in a "press availability"?
Methinks the news editors, much like the White House staff, are scrambling to cover the President's ... yeah.
Columnist Thomas Friedman takes the administration to task, and offers some recommendations;
That's three grand. One day's worth of business.
That these things have happened in our POW detention system does not alone warrant Rumsfeld's exit. That these things have happened, have continued, and are surfacing late in the game after we'd already heard about it ... that's a big problem.
Both Rumsfeld and Bush bear responsibility, especially as we track out the "ultimate responsibility."
Additionally, what will Jacques Verges say if we don't hold the upper echelon responsible for the acts of the lower?
Look at the headlines. What is so hard about looking Iraqis in the eye and apologizing without pretense?
Here, Mr. President, a very simple script:
• "I am deeply, truly sorry for what has happened at Abu Gharib. I never meant for this to happen. I never wanted this to happen."
It's not tough, Mr. President .....
Here, a little more complex, but I really like this one:
• "I am sorry, truly. But I have not apologized directly to the Iraqi people yet because I have chosen to first understand the magnitude of the situation so that I know what I'm apologizing for. It would not do well to make weekly apologies if there is a widespread systemic problem. After a while, they would ring falsely. So we're going to assess the problem, figure out just how much of this is going on, and try to apologize for the whole mess once we know clearly its dimensions and attributes."
Either one of those would do. But your mouthpieces won't even say it.
Yes, this administration is still of better standing than Saddam Hussein's regime, but that's not saying much.
I'm reasonably calm about the atrocious behavior of some of our troops. These things happen. What disgusts me most is our administration's stubborn refusal to give a whit's worth of respect to the Iraqi people whom we're thrashing at a rather impressive cost.
I understand the idea of not showing weakness. But compassion is a strength. Honesty is a progressive asset.
Why is our president "too good" to apologize to the Iraqi people? Why does his "formal apology" go to the king of a neighboring country?
Mr. Bush has brought disgrace to the Oval Office and to the United States of America. His final acts should be:
(1) Fire Don Rumsfeld.
(2) Put on Osama bin Laden mask, sneak up behind Cheney, and yell, "Boo!"
(3) Resign from office, end election bid, apologize to the American people.
By itself, the abuse scandal is relatively small, and something that can be worked with. This administration is taking all the necessary steps to make it much larger, much more dangerous, and much more deadly than it needs to be.
Bush: "I told His Majesty . . . I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi people."
The headlines aren't quite right; the News McNuggets smell spoiled. President Bush continues to flee from an apology to the Iraqi people.
After going on Arab television and failing to explicitly apologize, the President's advisers rushed to express his apologies in the aftermath. Before the President's remarks hit the air, American generals made explicit apologies on behalf of the U.S. Army.
Let's go to the Big Board:
• CNN.com. "Bush 'sorry for humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners." May 6, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
2001921436_webbush06.html
• Friedman, Thomas. "Restoring Our Honor." New York Times, May 6, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06FRIE.html
• Froomkin, Dan.. "Bush's Reluctance to Apologize." Washington Post.May 6, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6394-2004May6.html
• Seattle Times (AP). "Bush formally apologizes for abuse of Iraqi prisoners." May 6, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
• Stout, David. "Bush Says He's Sorry for Abuse of Iraqis, Then Backs Rumsfeld." New York Times, May 7, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CND-RUMS.html
• WhiteHouse.gov. "President Bush, Jordanian King Discuss Iraq, Middle East." May 6, 2004. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040506-9.html
The big scandal seems to be the headlines coming out of Washington, D.C. First of all, let's start with an excerpt of yesterday's (May 5) press briefing with Scott McClellan, as provided by Froomkin in his article:
And reporters pressed the issue of why Bush won't apologize with his own voice; one even went so far as to argue, "There's a distinction, Scott."
In addition to Generals Kimmett and Miller, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice also expressed executive apologies.
So we turn to the President.
What is the problem with apologizing explicitly to the people of Iraq? Because despite what the headlines suggest, Bush's public (e.g. formal) apology to the Iraqi people consists of the following:
Come now ... this is getting ridiculous.
President Bush's formal apology to the Iraqis is given privately to King Abdullah II of Jordan, and then described publicly in a "press availability"?
Methinks the news editors, much like the White House staff, are scrambling to cover the President's ... yeah.
Columnist Thomas Friedman takes the administration to task, and offers some recommendations;
In many jobs, if something goes wrong, you are responsible regardless of your ignorance of the situation. A friend once managed a restaurant. One deposit worth $3,000 or so never got logged. The company fired the entire management team, including those who weren't in that day, and never did establish that the problem wasn't at the bank's end.
That's three grand. One day's worth of business.
That these things have happened in our POW detention system does not alone warrant Rumsfeld's exit. That these things have happened, have continued, and are surfacing late in the game after we'd already heard about it ... that's a big problem.
Both Rumsfeld and Bush bear responsibility, especially as we track out the "ultimate responsibility."
Additionally, what will Jacques Verges say if we don't hold the upper echelon responsible for the acts of the lower?
Look at the headlines. What is so hard about looking Iraqis in the eye and apologizing without pretense?
–––––––––––––––
Here, Mr. President, a very simple script:
• "I am deeply, truly sorry for what has happened at Abu Gharib. I never meant for this to happen. I never wanted this to happen."
It's not tough, Mr. President .....
Here, a little more complex, but I really like this one:
• "I am sorry, truly. But I have not apologized directly to the Iraqi people yet because I have chosen to first understand the magnitude of the situation so that I know what I'm apologizing for. It would not do well to make weekly apologies if there is a widespread systemic problem. After a while, they would ring falsely. So we're going to assess the problem, figure out just how much of this is going on, and try to apologize for the whole mess once we know clearly its dimensions and attributes."
Either one of those would do. But your mouthpieces won't even say it.
–––––––––––––––
Yes, this administration is still of better standing than Saddam Hussein's regime, but that's not saying much.
I'm reasonably calm about the atrocious behavior of some of our troops. These things happen. What disgusts me most is our administration's stubborn refusal to give a whit's worth of respect to the Iraqi people whom we're thrashing at a rather impressive cost.
I understand the idea of not showing weakness. But compassion is a strength. Honesty is a progressive asset.
Why is our president "too good" to apologize to the Iraqi people? Why does his "formal apology" go to the king of a neighboring country?
Mr. Bush has brought disgrace to the Oval Office and to the United States of America. His final acts should be:
(1) Fire Don Rumsfeld.
(2) Put on Osama bin Laden mask, sneak up behind Cheney, and yell, "Boo!"
(3) Resign from office, end election bid, apologize to the American people.
By itself, the abuse scandal is relatively small, and something that can be worked with. This administration is taking all the necessary steps to make it much larger, much more dangerous, and much more deadly than it needs to be.
I think the malicious ignorance, willed ignorance, or pure malevolent leadership in the Bush administration should be gone with. Rumsfeld along with Woflowitz are in imo going to resign, or get kicked out eventually. The political pressure is already mounting; prior to the war these men told the American people outrageously stupid statements:
If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]."
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with Trudy Rubin of the Philidelphia Inquirer
11/17/2002
------------------
The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with 60 Minutes II
4/1/2003
Oh yes, so very easy isn't it boys? It's the height of poetic justice that Al Q has officially endorsed these men to win the White House in '04. What have these men done right? The military is overstretched, they covered up the abuse scandal, they lied about the WMD, and hundreds of American soldiers are dying for? The American people are finally getting it, the approval ratings are way too low for an incumbent to feel comfortable, slowly but surely Kerry is moving up. After Bush adopting Kerry's position on Iraq and the more Bush retains Rums, the greater the political liability. This man [Rums] has utterly failed the American military, and his own president, his boss. Republicans will try in vain to play this off as an electoral stunt, this is much greater then a mere stunt. The political impact from the refusal of Ms. Rice to testify in front of the 9/11 commission was an example of how this administration alone makes something relatively insignificant into a full fledged PR disaster. This is an administration in chaos, with defections all over the place. With ineptitude everywhere, and duplicity in their motives, one has to wonder how much more can a country take?
If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]."
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with Trudy Rubin of the Philidelphia Inquirer
11/17/2002
------------------
The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Interview with 60 Minutes II
4/1/2003
Oh yes, so very easy isn't it boys? It's the height of poetic justice that Al Q has officially endorsed these men to win the White House in '04. What have these men done right? The military is overstretched, they covered up the abuse scandal, they lied about the WMD, and hundreds of American soldiers are dying for? The American people are finally getting it, the approval ratings are way too low for an incumbent to feel comfortable, slowly but surely Kerry is moving up. After Bush adopting Kerry's position on Iraq and the more Bush retains Rums, the greater the political liability. This man [Rums] has utterly failed the American military, and his own president, his boss. Republicans will try in vain to play this off as an electoral stunt, this is much greater then a mere stunt. The political impact from the refusal of Ms. Rice to testify in front of the 9/11 commission was an example of how this administration alone makes something relatively insignificant into a full fledged PR disaster. This is an administration in chaos, with defections all over the place. With ineptitude everywhere, and duplicity in their motives, one has to wonder how much more can a country take?
Thank You, Mr. President
• "Arabs Rage at Bush's America" - see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4838-2004May5.html
• "George Bush as Saddam Hussein" - see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2004May3.html
Thanks, George. Really.
• "Arabs Rage at Bush's America" - see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4838-2004May5.html
• "George Bush as Saddam Hussein" - see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2004May3.html
Thanks, George. Really.
And more ....
And more . . . .
Dan Froomkin, of The Washington Post, covers the issue rather well:
Shin-guards are now standard-issue for the press corps.
Update: Rather than post a new post, I figured to bring the lead editorial from the New York Times to this article, as well:
_____________________
• Froomkin, Dan. "White House Briefing: About That Apology." Washington Post, May 7, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7813-2004May7.html
• New York Times. "Donald Rumsfeld Should Go." May 7, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07FRI1.html
And more . . . .
Dan Froomkin, of The Washington Post, covers the issue rather well:
The article goes on then to quote various sources around the news-media world, including an oddly touching moment out of Cincinnatti. Also, Froomkin continues to follow the McClellan Show at the daily press briefings; Scott's amazing. He could probably get away with denying an affair while boinking an intern at the briefing. If only he had the sense of faux-dignity that Slick Willie brought to the teflon game. (Where the prior president had that "teflon" aspect about him, McClellan reminds me of a bit in Monty Python's Holy Grail. I want to look down at him and say, "What are you going to do, bleed on me?")
Shin-guards are now standard-issue for the press corps.
Update: Rather than post a new post, I figured to bring the lead editorial from the New York Times to this article, as well:
I'll raise a pipe to that.
_____________________
• Froomkin, Dan. "White House Briefing: About That Apology." Washington Post, May 7, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7813-2004May7.html
• New York Times. "Donald Rumsfeld Should Go." May 7, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07FRI1.html
Last edited:
And it stoned me
I just wanted to put in the most random stoner thought of the week:
I've happened to be in front of the television at the right time to see family members speaking on behalf of three of the accused. All have difficulty articulating themselves. Now, this is, of course, somewhat understandable under the circumstances, but I find myself "thinking for them," filling in the gaps of what they're trying to say. And this wasn't like Eunice Stone's appearance on MSNBC. These people aren't paralyzed. And here's the absolutely horrible part about it ... it's not the sympathetic, "I know, the pressure must be incredible," filling in of the gaps (for the record, Ms. Stone's occasion left no opportunity for that kind of filling in of the gaps; it was an inadvisable appearance) but rather the kind of filling in the gaps you do when you're watching a documentary and an uneducated person is trying to explain something to the camera.
Now, I admit it's not universal.
• (Soldier unknown) - I cannot remember his name. He was one of the first ID's to be made in the US, as I recall. His folks are southerners, and his mother held up as well as she could. His father ... something about his father seemed just paranoid. I wrote it off, and he seemed much more rational in some other footage I happened to see, but somewhat at a loss to state what I thought a simple case essentially accusing the chain of command. I expected him to burst out, "It's the damn gov'mint!"
• Pfc. Lyndee England - I ... I do feel sorry for any American run through the British tabloid thresher, but ... I thought I was watching Springer while listening to her family speak on one of the American networks after Ms. England was branded the "American Queen of Mean" in the UK. They didn't seem particularly nervous, just ... ah ... the polite euphemism is that they seemed somehow "rustic." (If you speak the phrase, you must speak the quotation marks.) And really, the whole thing just seems sordid at this point. I mean ... did anyone know she's pregnant? Five months along? And by another accused?
• Sgt. Javal Davis - I saw ... I believe it was Davis' wife. And this woman I have respect for. When asked about the chain of command issue, she responded that she was more concerned about Javal right now. Great answer, I admit. She's bright, but I think undereducated. She had a hard time articulating what seems to be a possibly-reasonable guilt-by-association/guilt-by-silence explanation.
Now, this is where the stoner part comes in, and I wouldn't mention it at all--maybe not even have thought of it--except that all of my myths about this kind of overt simplicity being impossible have been destroyed by the WMD war cry. (I'm serious when I say this kind of inaccuracy was unimaginable in my not-yet-ancient youth; please understand ... I need those weapons to be found to restore a certain spiritual faith in my American neighbors that was evaporated by the slowburning shock of the weapons' apparent absence.)
At any rate ....
Start by imagining that the people in the pictures are "mostly innocent".
I'll let that one float for a moment. Take your time. (Don't worry, we'll do away with that silly notion shortly.)
What I mean by that is just imagine that some of the people in the pictures we've seen so far are standing there in that pose at request or order of a superior?
Now, I'm proposing the case that these people may come from families whose educational par is average-at-best. So perhaps these soldiers aren't the brightest in the bunch. And so the implications of simple things like striking a pose for a friend or a superior officer doesn't seem particularly amiss.
And if "military intelligence" wanted the prisoners treated this way ... well, they're not going to leave a paper trail of memoranda. Is it possible to create deliberately an atmosphere in which you can exploit certain intellectual lacks in some soldiers to cause by their presumed-innocent (-naîve) actions the necessary (e.g. in the opinion of the "intelligence" folks) abusive force applied to the Iraqis?
We pause to think sometimes about the psychological methods used to crack enemies, but what about to manipulate our own soldiers?
If you have ... comparatively, relatively low-profile intellects under stressful conditions, can you exploit limitations of problem-solving (e.g. moral conundra) or other skills in order to "incite" certain behavior?
Now at this point I'm even so far out in the galaxy to think in terms of creating patsies for more sinister and shadowy individuals to be protected, &c., &c.
Strangely more reasonably, though, what about pushing them all the way? Can they be manipulated beyond something so simple as being dumb enough to pose for a photo all the way up to actually doing these things intentionally without understanding the gravity of their actions despite their training?
Just a random moment of paranoia.
:m:
I just wanted to put in the most random stoner thought of the week:
I've happened to be in front of the television at the right time to see family members speaking on behalf of three of the accused. All have difficulty articulating themselves. Now, this is, of course, somewhat understandable under the circumstances, but I find myself "thinking for them," filling in the gaps of what they're trying to say. And this wasn't like Eunice Stone's appearance on MSNBC. These people aren't paralyzed. And here's the absolutely horrible part about it ... it's not the sympathetic, "I know, the pressure must be incredible," filling in of the gaps (for the record, Ms. Stone's occasion left no opportunity for that kind of filling in of the gaps; it was an inadvisable appearance) but rather the kind of filling in the gaps you do when you're watching a documentary and an uneducated person is trying to explain something to the camera.
Now, I admit it's not universal.
• (Soldier unknown) - I cannot remember his name. He was one of the first ID's to be made in the US, as I recall. His folks are southerners, and his mother held up as well as she could. His father ... something about his father seemed just paranoid. I wrote it off, and he seemed much more rational in some other footage I happened to see, but somewhat at a loss to state what I thought a simple case essentially accusing the chain of command. I expected him to burst out, "It's the damn gov'mint!"
• Pfc. Lyndee England - I ... I do feel sorry for any American run through the British tabloid thresher, but ... I thought I was watching Springer while listening to her family speak on one of the American networks after Ms. England was branded the "American Queen of Mean" in the UK. They didn't seem particularly nervous, just ... ah ... the polite euphemism is that they seemed somehow "rustic." (If you speak the phrase, you must speak the quotation marks.) And really, the whole thing just seems sordid at this point. I mean ... did anyone know she's pregnant? Five months along? And by another accused?
• Sgt. Javal Davis - I saw ... I believe it was Davis' wife. And this woman I have respect for. When asked about the chain of command issue, she responded that she was more concerned about Javal right now. Great answer, I admit. She's bright, but I think undereducated. She had a hard time articulating what seems to be a possibly-reasonable guilt-by-association/guilt-by-silence explanation.
Now, this is where the stoner part comes in, and I wouldn't mention it at all--maybe not even have thought of it--except that all of my myths about this kind of overt simplicity being impossible have been destroyed by the WMD war cry. (I'm serious when I say this kind of inaccuracy was unimaginable in my not-yet-ancient youth; please understand ... I need those weapons to be found to restore a certain spiritual faith in my American neighbors that was evaporated by the slowburning shock of the weapons' apparent absence.)
At any rate ....
Start by imagining that the people in the pictures are "mostly innocent".
I'll let that one float for a moment. Take your time. (Don't worry, we'll do away with that silly notion shortly.)
What I mean by that is just imagine that some of the people in the pictures we've seen so far are standing there in that pose at request or order of a superior?
Now, I'm proposing the case that these people may come from families whose educational par is average-at-best. So perhaps these soldiers aren't the brightest in the bunch. And so the implications of simple things like striking a pose for a friend or a superior officer doesn't seem particularly amiss.
And if "military intelligence" wanted the prisoners treated this way ... well, they're not going to leave a paper trail of memoranda. Is it possible to create deliberately an atmosphere in which you can exploit certain intellectual lacks in some soldiers to cause by their presumed-innocent (-naîve) actions the necessary (e.g. in the opinion of the "intelligence" folks) abusive force applied to the Iraqis?
We pause to think sometimes about the psychological methods used to crack enemies, but what about to manipulate our own soldiers?
If you have ... comparatively, relatively low-profile intellects under stressful conditions, can you exploit limitations of problem-solving (e.g. moral conundra) or other skills in order to "incite" certain behavior?
Now at this point I'm even so far out in the galaxy to think in terms of creating patsies for more sinister and shadowy individuals to be protected, &c., &c.
Strangely more reasonably, though, what about pushing them all the way? Can they be manipulated beyond something so simple as being dumb enough to pose for a photo all the way up to actually doing these things intentionally without understanding the gravity of their actions despite their training?
Just a random moment of paranoia.
:m:
Last edited:
We are left to fill in so many blanks in this story. My hunch is that many personnel were completely unprepared by their limited educations and world experience for the culture shock and unusual powers they were suddenly exposed to. The US military organization was similarly and utterly unprepared to run a hostile occupation and process thousands of foreign detainees.
The resulting cesspool of depravity is quickly dispelled by daylight. Not so easily corrected are the now customary crimes of "collateral" killing that continue in the streets of Iraq, where innocents are terrorized, maimed, and killed day after day. In all its dark places, the occupation of Iraq will always conceal hideous microhells. It is one big wrongful prison, one gigantic humiliation of human beings, and it must end.
The resulting cesspool of depravity is quickly dispelled by daylight. Not so easily corrected are the now customary crimes of "collateral" killing that continue in the streets of Iraq, where innocents are terrorized, maimed, and killed day after day. In all its dark places, the occupation of Iraq will always conceal hideous microhells. It is one big wrongful prison, one gigantic humiliation of human beings, and it must end.
L
laughing weasel
Guest
Does any one know weather psychological torture is illegal or not. Because if it is not by the Geneva Convention then I would probably say that this is just another symptom of this governments appalling contempt for the rights of anyone who is not an American. They do not seem to even be respectful of American citizen’s rights. These soldiers may have been obeying orders. The guards on duty at the German concentration camps were tried for war crimes. If you allow someone to commit a crime and do not attempt to prevent the crime then you are also guilty.
UPDATED - Rumsfeld, Meyers resign? (Army Times)
Updated: Military-affairs newspaper calls for accountability
Army Times - Editors: Rumsfeld, Meyers resign?; Poll: Chain of command responsible
Reports swirl about a forthcoming (today) editorial in Army Times calling in effect for Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Meyers to resign or be sacked.
I saw first mention of it at the BBC News website. An article carried by New York Times (reg. required) reports that the editorial calls the Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs responsible for "a failure that amounts to professional negligence," and notes that the value of accountability may include replacing top leaders during wartime.
The news coverage originated, apparently, with CBS News. I have not yet located the editorial itself, but I doubt the day will pass without it becoming available.
UPDATE: The editorial is available at the following link; see below for bibliographic information: A failure of leadership at the highest levels.
In the meantime, a stop by the Army Times' poll results indicates that AT readers (or at least voters in the poll--after all, anyone can vote in the poll) are unwilling to hold the soldiers themselves accountable without seeking fault in the chain of command:
• Who do you think is more culpable for recent allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison?
- The soldiers who were guarding the prisoners: 17.32% (770 votes)
- The chain of command, for not issuing clear guidelines for prisoner treatment: 21.70% (965 votes)
- Both the unit and commanders are equally responsible: 59.22% (2,633 votes)
- I don't know: 1.75% (78 votes)
Total Votes: 4,446
You can vote in the poll at the AT home page, linked above.
____________________
Reference Links:
• Army Times. "A failure of leadership at the highest levels." May 17, 2004. See http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php (Updated 5.10.2004)
• Army Times. "Poll Results." See http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php
• BBC. "Bush battles to defend Rumsfeld." May 10, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3699453.stm
• CBS News. "Bush, Rumsfeld In Pentagon Powwow." May 10, 2004. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/09/iraq/main616398.shtml
• International Herald Tribune. "Bush team gives firm backing to Rumsfeld." May 10, 2004. See http://www.iht.com/articles/519108.html
• New York Times (IHT). "Republicans Stand by Rumsfeld as Furor Over Abuse Continues." May 9, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/middleeast/09CND-POLI.html (reg. required; see IHT note below)
See Also:
• Washington Post. "Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy." May 9, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html
Notes:
• Regarding the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times - There is some discrepancy between the Brian Knowlton's New York Times article and the article published article for the International Herald Tribune. I've decided to include both links here because the NYT article is shorter and uses softer language. The IHT article uses, for instance, the phrase, "the United States was winning tactically in Iraq but losing strategically -- prevailing militarily but failing, perhaps disastrously, to win Iraqis' support." The NYT article leaves out the first part; the military officers quoted only say that "the United States was prevailing militarily in Iraq but failing, perhaps disastrously, to win Iraqis' support." Just thought it worth pointing out; IHT is a French publication, so insert whatever joke works best here. At any rate, the quote in dispute is reported by those publications from the Washington Post. And that article might be a topic in itself.
This is why people learn to read between the lines. Of course, I wonder what the overlap in readership is between WP and NYT?
Updated: Military-affairs newspaper calls for accountability
Army Times - Editors: Rumsfeld, Meyers resign?; Poll: Chain of command responsible
Reports swirl about a forthcoming (today) editorial in Army Times calling in effect for Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Meyers to resign or be sacked.
I saw first mention of it at the BBC News website. An article carried by New York Times (reg. required) reports that the editorial calls the Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs responsible for "a failure that amounts to professional negligence," and notes that the value of accountability may include replacing top leaders during wartime.
The news coverage originated, apparently, with CBS News. I have not yet located the editorial itself, but I doubt the day will pass without it becoming available.
——————————
UPDATE: The editorial is available at the following link; see below for bibliographic information: A failure of leadership at the highest levels.
——————————
In the meantime, a stop by the Army Times' poll results indicates that AT readers (or at least voters in the poll--after all, anyone can vote in the poll) are unwilling to hold the soldiers themselves accountable without seeking fault in the chain of command:
• Who do you think is more culpable for recent allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison?
- The soldiers who were guarding the prisoners: 17.32% (770 votes)
- The chain of command, for not issuing clear guidelines for prisoner treatment: 21.70% (965 votes)
- Both the unit and commanders are equally responsible: 59.22% (2,633 votes)
- I don't know: 1.75% (78 votes)
Total Votes: 4,446
You can vote in the poll at the AT home page, linked above.
____________________
Reference Links:
• Army Times. "A failure of leadership at the highest levels." May 17, 2004. See http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php (Updated 5.10.2004)
• Army Times. "Poll Results." See http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php
• BBC. "Bush battles to defend Rumsfeld." May 10, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3699453.stm
• CBS News. "Bush, Rumsfeld In Pentagon Powwow." May 10, 2004. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/09/iraq/main616398.shtml
• International Herald Tribune. "Bush team gives firm backing to Rumsfeld." May 10, 2004. See http://www.iht.com/articles/519108.html
• New York Times (IHT). "Republicans Stand by Rumsfeld as Furor Over Abuse Continues." May 9, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/middleeast/09CND-POLI.html (reg. required; see IHT note below)
See Also:
• Washington Post. "Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy." May 9, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html
Notes:
• Regarding the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times - There is some discrepancy between the Brian Knowlton's New York Times article and the article published article for the International Herald Tribune. I've decided to include both links here because the NYT article is shorter and uses softer language. The IHT article uses, for instance, the phrase, "the United States was winning tactically in Iraq but losing strategically -- prevailing militarily but failing, perhaps disastrously, to win Iraqis' support." The NYT article leaves out the first part; the military officers quoted only say that "the United States was prevailing militarily in Iraq but failing, perhaps disastrously, to win Iraqis' support." Just thought it worth pointing out; IHT is a French publication, so insert whatever joke works best here. At any rate, the quote in dispute is reported by those publications from the Washington Post. And that article might be a topic in itself.
This is why people learn to read between the lines. Of course, I wonder what the overlap in readership is between WP and NYT?
Last edited:
"The sum of all fears"
believe me, I bit you with my life it is coming in the way. The US is keeping collecting enemies and increases their hate against the US. One day in the future (a day that I think it is not that far) buying or producing a nuclear weapon wont be that big deal.
believe me, I bit you with my life it is coming in the way. The US is keeping collecting enemies and increases their hate against the US. One day in the future (a day that I think it is not that far) buying or producing a nuclear weapon wont be that big deal.
Rumblings from the top of the US military seem to adopt mine and others position on Iraq. It's being lost, and America is indeed fighting for the second time for a big nothing.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0510/dailyUpdate.html
Good source, the US military is beginning to understand that the war in Iraq is lost. The US has destroyed its credibility all over the world, never mind Iraq. Surely the US can win battles like Fallujah, or Najaf no one actually denies that. But the war is more then just mere battles. Strategically the US is losing this war very badly, and the US brass thinks so. I have along with others have been saying that the US will most likely fail in this adventure in Iraq. The obvious mismanagement from the so called "best defense sectary the US ever had" is evident. Democracy is seen as the biggest obstacle, not prize, federalism seems to be dead. The reality maybe the Iraq will be split up into three states, and the US might have to hope to avoid WWIII. These Generals are not being heard or listened to by the civilian gooks at the top. Rumsfled should resign not only for the torture, but for f***ing up Iraq so much, and leaving the US desperately weak.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0510/dailyUpdate.html
Good source, the US military is beginning to understand that the war in Iraq is lost. The US has destroyed its credibility all over the world, never mind Iraq. Surely the US can win battles like Fallujah, or Najaf no one actually denies that. But the war is more then just mere battles. Strategically the US is losing this war very badly, and the US brass thinks so. I have along with others have been saying that the US will most likely fail in this adventure in Iraq. The obvious mismanagement from the so called "best defense sectary the US ever had" is evident. Democracy is seen as the biggest obstacle, not prize, federalism seems to be dead. The reality maybe the Iraq will be split up into three states, and the US might have to hope to avoid WWIII. These Generals are not being heard or listened to by the civilian gooks at the top. Rumsfled should resign not only for the torture, but for f***ing up Iraq so much, and leaving the US desperately weak.
So what is it with Americans and 73%?
• CNN.com. "Poll: 73 percent say Iraqi abuse unjustified." May 10, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/poll.iraq.abuse/index.html
A recent CNN/USA Today poll showed that 73% of the respondents found the "abuse" of Iraqi prisoners unjustified. 23% said the actions were justified.
I do wonder about the 23%--is it just a superficial difference of reasons that makes the events at Abu Ghraib acceptable?
• CNN.com. "Poll: 73 percent say Iraqi abuse unjustified." May 10, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/poll.iraq.abuse/index.html
A recent CNN/USA Today poll showed that 73% of the respondents found the "abuse" of Iraqi prisoners unjustified. 23% said the actions were justified.
I do wonder about the 23%--is it just a superficial difference of reasons that makes the events at Abu Ghraib acceptable?
I do wonder about the 23%--is it just a superficial difference of reasons that makes the events at Abu Ghraib acceptable?
It's because those are "sand niggers" and America is just too great...White Man's burden you gotta reign them in somehow. No better why then by sheer power and humiliation. Their untermensch culture needs a "shock", democracy and freedom don't come "cheap".
It's because those are "sand niggers" and America is just too great...White Man's burden you gotta reign them in somehow. No better why then by sheer power and humiliation. Their untermensch culture needs a "shock", democracy and freedom don't come "cheap".
Soup du Jour: The plot thickens
Karpinski: "Overruled" on prison issues
The Washington Post reports that Brig. General Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade claims that she resisted decisions to allow military intelligence to set rules, including the use of lethal force. General Karpinski, formally admonished by the U.S. Army, detailed the issues in her account to Army investigators. Major General Geoffrey Miller and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez figure heavily in her account. Both dispute certain details.
Sanchez recalls the meeting but frames the story differently, pointing to a November riot at the prison. Karpinski told Maj. General Anthony Taguba, the U.S. Army investigator whose report does not spare the leadership, that Gen. Sanchez was disappointed that the guards had not turned to lethal force at the outset of the riot. Through her attorney, Karpinski has alleged that Sanchez said, "I'm tired of this MP mentality; I want them to shoot first and use nonlethal force later."
Karpinski claims she objected according to her duty, and also according to her concern that it would be dangerous for the MP's to carry lethal ammunition among inmates.
• You already know more about what happened at Abu Ghraib under the US occupation than you may ever know about what happened there under Saddam Hussein.
• Nonetheless, if this looks really strange to you ... well, just go with it. We're used to it over here--bickering and finger-pointing is a god-given ritual in this country. Wait 'til the dog and pony show falls through; the heat's hot enough this time that it just might not.
Sure, we're Americans. But we have our limits. Were I younger I would take some perverse pleasure in watching my neighbors agonize over this. But it's chilling to hear that mortal tone in even my own mother's voice. Stay tuned, be easy. This will get a lot more entertaining before it gets any better.
_____________________
• Smith, R. Jeffrey and Josh White. "General Asserts She Was Overruled on Prison Moves." Washington Post, May 12, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19081-2004May11.html
Karpinski: "Overruled" on prison issues
The Washington Post reports that Brig. General Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade claims that she resisted decisions to allow military intelligence to set rules, including the use of lethal force. General Karpinski, formally admonished by the U.S. Army, detailed the issues in her account to Army investigators. Major General Geoffrey Miller and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez figure heavily in her account. Both dispute certain details.
Karpinski's account also asserts that Miller told her,
Miller denies the comments altogether. Of General Sanchez, Karpinski said it was his decision in November, 2003, to ease the rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force.
Sanchez recalls the meeting but frames the story differently, pointing to a November riot at the prison. Karpinski told Maj. General Anthony Taguba, the U.S. Army investigator whose report does not spare the leadership, that Gen. Sanchez was disappointed that the guards had not turned to lethal force at the outset of the riot. Through her attorney, Karpinski has alleged that Sanchez said, "I'm tired of this MP mentality; I want them to shoot first and use nonlethal force later."
Karpinski claims she objected according to her duty, and also according to her concern that it would be dangerous for the MP's to carry lethal ammunition among inmates.
Two reminders to the Arab world:
• You already know more about what happened at Abu Ghraib under the US occupation than you may ever know about what happened there under Saddam Hussein.
• Nonetheless, if this looks really strange to you ... well, just go with it. We're used to it over here--bickering and finger-pointing is a god-given ritual in this country. Wait 'til the dog and pony show falls through; the heat's hot enough this time that it just might not.
Sure, we're Americans. But we have our limits. Were I younger I would take some perverse pleasure in watching my neighbors agonize over this. But it's chilling to hear that mortal tone in even my own mother's voice. Stay tuned, be easy. This will get a lot more entertaining before it gets any better.
_____________________
• Smith, R. Jeffrey and Josh White. "General Asserts She Was Overruled on Prison Moves." Washington Post, May 12, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19081-2004May11.html
Mirror photos faked, editor resigns
Daily Mirror plays victim of "calculated and malicious hoax."
1 Truck appears to be different to those used by regiment in Iraq.
2 Some say rifle is SA80 Mk I, not Mk II model used in Iraq.
3 One analyst says weapon is too "pristine" and barrel would be covered.
4 . . . army does not use potato sacks as hoods.
When it rains, it pours, and the Daily Mirror is drowning at present in what may be the most outrageous and unnecessary development so far: the Mirror ran photos alleged to be of Iraqi abuse, allegedly given them by two soldiers, which has been publicly rebutted by defence minister Adam Ingram. The above photo, originally published by the Mirror, has been provided with analysis by the BBC.
Mirror editor Piers Morgan has reversed his initial stand and has resigned under pressure. The Mirror has apologized explicitly. An investigation into the origin of the photos has been initiated.
In the meantime the war of words is on. The Mirror says it is victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax," though some feel differently. Mr. Ingram said that the name of the QLR has been "dragged through the mud by the Mirror." Tory Keith Simpson expressed his anger at those who "connived with the production of these photographs."
Comment
Well, this certainly isn't what anyone needed. A BBC reader responded that he was shocked "that many misguided people seem to believe that the Mirror has committed a more serious crime than those troops and senior officers who have tortured captives." My first opinion is that maybe he shouldn't base that on the opinions of the barflies, but I don't know that for a fact, and besides, the public house is an essential part of the human role in history. But that's the degree of hyperbole this scandal apparently calls down from the heavens. Time and, I would imagine, a Parliamentary inquiry will answer the question of the Mirror's part in this episode.
And, certainly, these pictures will unfortunately escalate the danger for British and coalition troops. But in the face of IRC and Amnesty reports critical of certain aspects of the UK effort, it would appear that the danger level is rising, anyway. And, what with the UK backing the US effort, there is more than likely some guilt by association especially in the minds of those who seek to oppose the occupation.
Meanwhile, in the UK, somebody will be tacked to the shed over these photos in the next few months; the question is only one of "Whose hide, Clyde?"
_____________________
• BBC News. "Mirror photos 'not taken in Iraq'." May 13, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3709289.stm
• BBC News. "Army photos: Claims and rebuttals." May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3680327.stm
• BBC News. "Editor sacked over 'hoax' pictures." May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
• BBC News. "How will Iraqi images affect coalition?" May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3696601.stm
Photo and analysis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_enl_1084523909/html/1.stm
Daily Mirror plays victim of "calculated and malicious hoax."
1 Truck appears to be different to those used by regiment in Iraq.
2 Some say rifle is SA80 Mk I, not Mk II model used in Iraq.
3 One analyst says weapon is too "pristine" and barrel would be covered.
4 . . . army does not use potato sacks as hoods.
When it rains, it pours, and the Daily Mirror is drowning at present in what may be the most outrageous and unnecessary development so far: the Mirror ran photos alleged to be of Iraqi abuse, allegedly given them by two soldiers, which has been publicly rebutted by defence minister Adam Ingram. The above photo, originally published by the Mirror, has been provided with analysis by the BBC.
Mirror editor Piers Morgan has reversed his initial stand and has resigned under pressure. The Mirror has apologized explicitly. An investigation into the origin of the photos has been initiated.
In the meantime the war of words is on. The Mirror says it is victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax," though some feel differently. Mr. Ingram said that the name of the QLR has been "dragged through the mud by the Mirror." Tory Keith Simpson expressed his anger at those who "connived with the production of these photographs."
Comment
Well, this certainly isn't what anyone needed. A BBC reader responded that he was shocked "that many misguided people seem to believe that the Mirror has committed a more serious crime than those troops and senior officers who have tortured captives." My first opinion is that maybe he shouldn't base that on the opinions of the barflies, but I don't know that for a fact, and besides, the public house is an essential part of the human role in history. But that's the degree of hyperbole this scandal apparently calls down from the heavens. Time and, I would imagine, a Parliamentary inquiry will answer the question of the Mirror's part in this episode.
And, certainly, these pictures will unfortunately escalate the danger for British and coalition troops. But in the face of IRC and Amnesty reports critical of certain aspects of the UK effort, it would appear that the danger level is rising, anyway. And, what with the UK backing the US effort, there is more than likely some guilt by association especially in the minds of those who seek to oppose the occupation.
Meanwhile, in the UK, somebody will be tacked to the shed over these photos in the next few months; the question is only one of "Whose hide, Clyde?"
_____________________
• BBC News. "Mirror photos 'not taken in Iraq'." May 13, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3709289.stm
• BBC News. "Army photos: Claims and rebuttals." May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3680327.stm
• BBC News. "Editor sacked over 'hoax' pictures." May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
• BBC News. "How will Iraqi images affect coalition?" May 14, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3696601.stm
Photo and analysis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_enl_1084523909/html/1.stm
Aye, tis as I predicted a few days ago. Morgan out of office, and its likely the mirror will be reigned in. Piers Morgan has a long and disrepuatble tabloid career, but apparently saw the light on 11/09/01, and since then has returned the Mirror to something of its old stance on things. (ie left of centre, working mans voic etc etc.) THis has made it unpopular. I find it no stretch of the imagination to suggest the whole thing was a set up. Note there has been no real mention of who took the photos and why, and though Morgan is a tabloid hack, hes not stupid enough to commission such photos. This leaves one of the options as being a smear attempt. All you have to do is offer a tabloid editor a scoop, and if its superficially correct, theyll jump at it. But then if you can demonstrate it is lies afterwards, you can force out the editor etc.
Of course, I might well be wrong, and the photos were just a squaddie prank that went wrong, in which case some people will be getting hauled over the coals, although we should hear about it if they are. Or else maybe they are from some sort of faked up documentary or program wanting "what if.." pics, except, like the previous suggestion, we should be hearing about who took the photos and why and so on, and we arent. I will be keeping my eyes peeled.
A final note, at the bottom of the may 14th politics BBC page, it says:
"The Sun newspaper had offered a £50,000 reward for "information about the fake Mirror photos" but withdrew the offer following the sacking of Morgan. "
hhmmmmm.
Of course, I might well be wrong, and the photos were just a squaddie prank that went wrong, in which case some people will be getting hauled over the coals, although we should hear about it if they are. Or else maybe they are from some sort of faked up documentary or program wanting "what if.." pics, except, like the previous suggestion, we should be hearing about who took the photos and why and so on, and we arent. I will be keeping my eyes peeled.
A final note, at the bottom of the may 14th politics BBC page, it says:
"The Sun newspaper had offered a £50,000 reward for "information about the fake Mirror photos" but withdrew the offer following the sacking of Morgan. "
hhmmmmm.
""Mirror photos faked, editor resigns""
well, this is right, some of the photos were faked, but not all.
the important point in here is that the whole subject is not faked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9130-2004May7.html
well, this is right, some of the photos were faked, but not all.
the important point in here is that the whole subject is not faked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9130-2004May7.html
"Oh, sh-- . . . ."
"Fear up harsh," or, "The Plot Thickens While the Stink Deepens"
J'accuse ... but whom? And of what? The daily grind is beyond ridiculous, beyond offensive, beyond anything the American people thought they were getting into when they settled on the Bush Junta because, well, hell, it was close enough.
It's official: I'm actually annoyed at the constant drone of Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib!
And so I accuse.
George W. Bush: This is your war. This is your fault.
Donald Rumsfeld: Was this always the plan? Prop him up and you knew even then that you would have to take him down afterward? Or is it some abstract hatred? Your fingerprints, apparently are not absent from this scandal. And if they were I'd wonder what the hell kind of DoD you were running. This is your fault also.
The commanders of our military forces actually working in Iraq are dealing with the situation the best they can. This is not some abject faith in the American military, but rather the idea that they must at some point deal with this or else face the horrific wrath of a galvanized opposition while the sympathetics walk away and call themselves Pilate. Regardless of what I think of the war in general, those commanders have a job to do and they're not going to leave their rank-and-file hanging in the dust. However, I would like their opinions on how best to extract from Bush and Rumsfeld the truth about what and when they knew and what their roles in which parts of how many scandals they've raised. I mean, we can't just go around treating them in the manner we so despise, or else the bad guys win again.
But when all the reports are filed and the press and the conspiracy-theorists have had their way with the affair and its players, I expect more than just those two hides tacked to the wall.
And I think the appropriate manner for handling the low-rank abusers would be to keep them locked up throughout the investigation and crucifixion of the brass, and after they've had to bare their souls repeatedly before the world, let them out and say, "Knowing what you're capable of doing, and seeing what we do to people with your poor judgment, are you certain that a military career is the path you wish to follow?" If they say yes, court-martial their asses, and if they say, "No, Sir!" discharge them according to their behavior and let the marks of their conduct follow them through their lives. Some of them might get a decent year or two out of the talk-show circuit before we're sick of them. I mean, when you stop to think that Morton Downey, Jr. will be thought of in better terms than these folks, I think forcing them to repeatedly rape their own souls testifying in various trials of higher-ups while the editorial writers just smoke them (and Joe Scarborough pleads mercy for them, blaming the Clinton administration for the mentality that led to these acts) will be a scarring-enough punishment. I mean, how many times will they have to get up and describe themselves in monstrous terms?
Of course, at that point they could always ask for Jacques Verges as their lawyer. And then they could blame the French.
______________________
• Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Knowledge of Abusive Tactics May Go Higher." Washington Post. May 16, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29988-2004May15.html
"Fear up harsh," or, "The Plot Thickens While the Stink Deepens"
J'accuse ... but whom? And of what? The daily grind is beyond ridiculous, beyond offensive, beyond anything the American people thought they were getting into when they settled on the Bush Junta because, well, hell, it was close enough.
It's official: I'm actually annoyed at the constant drone of Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib!
And so I accuse.
George W. Bush: This is your war. This is your fault.
Donald Rumsfeld: Was this always the plan? Prop him up and you knew even then that you would have to take him down afterward? Or is it some abstract hatred? Your fingerprints, apparently are not absent from this scandal. And if they were I'd wonder what the hell kind of DoD you were running. This is your fault also.
The commanders of our military forces actually working in Iraq are dealing with the situation the best they can. This is not some abject faith in the American military, but rather the idea that they must at some point deal with this or else face the horrific wrath of a galvanized opposition while the sympathetics walk away and call themselves Pilate. Regardless of what I think of the war in general, those commanders have a job to do and they're not going to leave their rank-and-file hanging in the dust. However, I would like their opinions on how best to extract from Bush and Rumsfeld the truth about what and when they knew and what their roles in which parts of how many scandals they've raised. I mean, we can't just go around treating them in the manner we so despise, or else the bad guys win again.
But when all the reports are filed and the press and the conspiracy-theorists have had their way with the affair and its players, I expect more than just those two hides tacked to the wall.
And I think the appropriate manner for handling the low-rank abusers would be to keep them locked up throughout the investigation and crucifixion of the brass, and after they've had to bare their souls repeatedly before the world, let them out and say, "Knowing what you're capable of doing, and seeing what we do to people with your poor judgment, are you certain that a military career is the path you wish to follow?" If they say yes, court-martial their asses, and if they say, "No, Sir!" discharge them according to their behavior and let the marks of their conduct follow them through their lives. Some of them might get a decent year or two out of the talk-show circuit before we're sick of them. I mean, when you stop to think that Morton Downey, Jr. will be thought of in better terms than these folks, I think forcing them to repeatedly rape their own souls testifying in various trials of higher-ups while the editorial writers just smoke them (and Joe Scarborough pleads mercy for them, blaming the Clinton administration for the mentality that led to these acts) will be a scarring-enough punishment. I mean, how many times will they have to get up and describe themselves in monstrous terms?
Of course, at that point they could always ask for Jacques Verges as their lawyer. And then they could blame the French.
______________________
• Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Knowledge of Abusive Tactics May Go Higher." Washington Post. May 16, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29988-2004May15.html