I share your outrage Michael. This is the worst actions of the US gov't I can recall since WACO. That's what, a decade?

But I do think you aren't thinking through the impact of our response. Who are we trying to placate? The Arab world? Forget about it. There is nothing we could do to placate them. Heck, there was nothing before this mess we could do to placate them. So anything we do, or do not do, will only serve to justify their pre-determined feelings about us. Either we are weak and sacrificed someone, or we didn't go high enough (anybody but Bush).

This is about doing something so Americans can look ourselves in the mirror. That's it.

Who should go?

1. The soldiers involved;
2. The head of the Prison;
3. The head of the Prison system in Iraq;
4. The head of training for the MP's, or this division of the MP's;
5. Somebody very senior in theater. They SHOULD have known, if they didn't. Who is that? I don't know. Abizaid? Bremer?

I think it is folly to suggest that Rummy knew, should have known or created the conditions that led to this.

Although I'd love to find a way to get Tenet, in addition to the rest, to take the fall and kill two birds with one stone.

Michael, maybe it's time to admit that, whatever the deficiencies of the Dems, the present Administration is basically incompetent and we can't afford another four years of this. It's not like this is the only problem. What's next?
BTW it's too late to fire anyone high up - the election, Congressional approvals and all that. Nope, at this late date we need to fire the guy at the top who is way in over his head.

Here's the problem guys. We are in the right. This is civilization vs. barbarism. Firing Bush, as the lefties want to do, will not make the Arabs less angry at us than they already are. Any of you guys who think that our image will improve just because the Dems take power will gain the opposite: the jihadists will perceive that we have lost our nerve to fight. I can guarandamnteeya that we will be in the same world of shit with Kerry in office that we are with Bush. Only worse. Our enemies will think we've gone soft.

That's deadly, whether you folks want to admit it or not.

Let me tell you something. Most of the people in the Middle East who danced in the street when we were attacked were, you guessed it, Arabs. I didn't see too many Israelis jumping for joy on that day. We will never be liked by the Arabs. Envied, perhaps. Feared and respected on other days. But always held with some suspicion and a deep and abiding sense that we are something other than they could ever hope to be. I have high hopes, still, for the Iraqis. But I hold out little hope for the rest of the Arab world.

What most Westerners either don't realize or don't want to admit to themselves is how popular bin Laden and his crew still are in that part of the world.

Yes, round up the sumbitches who embarrassed this country no end. Give them a fair courts martial and a fair jail sentance. And give a nice long stretch to that incompetent buckpassing fuckwit who got to wear a star. Try to teach the Arabs that we are, at bottom, a nation that reacts to violations of the law. The men of the Third Division, the First Cav, the Guadalcanal Division, and countless other storied outfits are the ones whose honor has been defamed. Let there be justice for those Iraqis whose rights were violated, but let us restore the spotless honor of our fighting units. Sure, hold Rumsfeld responsible and vote against Bush if that makes you feel better.

But don't come hand me this bullshit that the Arabs will all at once admire us. That's just happy horseshit. Why, those bastards in the Arab press ran with a story that we were whoring around with innocent Arab women. As proof, they used outtakes from a couple of Scandinavian or East European porn flicks. The American embassy in Cairo asked for a retraction. Don't hold your freaking breath. Hell, I'm just waiting for the first conspiracy theorist to pop up in the Arab Press and claim that the 800th MP Brigade is secretly run by the Mossad!

You want a friend in the Middle East? Get a fucking dog.

We're going to have a civil war in this country.

spc67: I do think you aren't thinking through the impact of our response. Who are we trying to placate?

Iraqi civilians who don't know which way to jump right now.

Michael, with all due respect, there is a limit to what you can tell your Syrian friend, even in the best of times.

If he is at all politically aware, then he has already observed that the very infamy of the scandal the sheer volume of denunciation among Americans (including the president) implies that this is an aberration. He will take us or leave us in all of our imperfect glory, and there's nothing anyone can tell him.

When he decided he loved America, he had his reasons. I doubt you had to explain to him why he should.

The ABC snapshot poll conducted after the hearings on Friday captured the crucial issue, you know.

Is the scandal serious? Yep. Disgusting? Yes. Reason enought to heave Donald Rumsfeld over the side as a political liability?

Hell no.

He's serious about his job and duty. He's also responsible in large part for fighting two successful wars with minimal casualties and maximum speed of victory.

The peace isn't won yet? Better talk to Bush and the folks at State about that. Rumsfeld's ideas were overruled on that end.

This tempest...based on truly disgusting abuses...has been scripted, timed, and executed with the wilful intent of scuppering one of the two most effective cabinet secretaries, with the ultimate goal of bringing political damage to the administration.

It has been launched with the full knowledge that there probably isn't another man capable of replacing Rumsfeld...at least one who would deign to put up with the same crap that the incumbent secretary has.

Anyway...back to why he the polls disagree with conventional wisdom: These are serious times for serious people.

I don't think the sentiment is limited to Rumsfeld's perceived value to the country. I don't think that November is going to be even close. And I think that the wheels will be coming off for media THEN Kerry before the convention even gets here. Campaigning for Kerry must be like participating in an egg toss without a partner. Toss it up...then see if you can catch it. Toss it up...then see if you can catch it. Nobody watches...toss it waaaaaay up....and people watch long enough to see if this will be the fall that breaks the egg...then they ignore you again.

You go ahead and vote for Kerry, Michael. It's a free country. You just make sure you keep notes and do a good write up on the ...talent...that follows Kerry into the White House.

I don't think Barnum and Bailey would be able to top that lineup.

Bush fundamentally, deep down, believes that he's God's choice for President. I think when you're ego tripping to those extremes it becomes pretty damn hard to admit a mistake or apologize for something. This is Bush's biggest flaw, if you ask me, and I doubt that firing Don Rumsfeld would go half as far as a heartfelt apology to the Iraqi people. That having been said, I still think the guy probably needs to go.

And I need to go for a while too, Michael. You won't be seeing me around here much if at all in the next couple of weeks. I totaled my car, yesterday. Completely. And I had been drinking.

So, yep, I'm fucked. Fucked in a way I've never been fucked before. Got some reorganizing to do. Got to get my priorities straightened out. Need to grow up. Talk to you later, my friend. Wish me good luck in my soul-searching.

Oh, and know that I'm okay. After many many end-over-end flips, I wound up with a six-foot wooden fence in my backseat. One of the posts only missed my head by about 6 or 8 inches. Everyone's telling me it was a miracle that I survived at all, and all I came away with were some scrapes and bruises. Sometimes I wonder.

Okay, I'm wigging out here. I need to stop. Good luck with the job-hunt (or the non-job-hunt, whichever you prefer). Talk to everyone later.

Jesus Christ, Grant. I hope you're okay. Be well. Email me any time.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
Theodore Roosvelt.
This is how I feel about Bush and his men who are serious about this war and your choice of critics: Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Albright, Reno and the memorable Mark Dayton.

spc67: I do think you aren't thinking through the impact of our response. Who are we trying to placate?

And to this Michael Totten answered:

Iraqi civilians who don't know which way to jump right now.

I will tell you what will happen if your Iraqui civilian thinks Michael Totten is representative of American opinion: "Bush will be defeated, Kerry will cut and run, I will be left to the mercy of Baathists and Islamists, I will better try to establish some credentials as a 'resistance helper' before it is too late".

You are right that war against terrorism is about hearts and minds and yes these guys should be punished but you don't win the battle for hearts and minds by suggesting Iraquis they could be abandonned, by allowing CAIR and similar a free field on name of multiculturalism, by presenting bin Laden as a kind of Robin Hood instead of as the racist, slavist scum he is (cf his help to the South Sudanese genocide), by sheddng tears on the dozens killed by an American stray bomb instead of the hudreds of thousands killed by Taleban and Saddam, or by ever presenting the US as the bad guy going to war for handling contracts to Haliburton.

This is the damage made to WOT by your Democrat friends and I have forgotten about the curbing the US to the will of those who made themselves rich by stealing from starving Iraquis during the Oil for Food scam.

Michael,

Put down the rope and focus on the problem.

Is lynching the President really going to solve the problem?

Did you really trust the people who said yes to that question last month?

Karpinski, the General responsible for Abu Gharib was relieved in January. She got fired after less than five months in command. For a flag officer, that is lightning fast dismissal.

Put down the rope because rage is not the solution to the problem. Put down the rope because the problem is already being solved. Put down the rope because if you do not, next week you'll be outside the Beaverton mosque with it.

Grant -

You've got mail. Good luck, sir.

Michael,

What could or should Bush do to "fix" this problem, to your satisfaction?

Mason: What could or should Bush do to "fix" this problem, to your satisfaction?

I don't know yet, honestly.

JFM: but you don't win the battle for hearts and minds by suggesting Iraquis they could be abandonned

I didn't suggest any such thing.

Mason, Michael, et al,

What can WE do to fix the problem? Not in November, now. And tomorrow and next week. Do something to counter this outrage. Send $20 to Spirit of America or some other group that represents the America we believe we are. Send letters to newspapers asking why there are no stories about our successes in the peaceful parts of Iraq where soldiers are busy building schools and playgrounds.

The thing I'm most worried about right now is American resolve and the consequences should we completely lose our nerve.

Michael Totten writes: "My disgust at the soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners seems to be bottomless. Somehow it manages to get deeper every day."

Your disgust is misplaced. Human susceptibility to peer pressure to abuse other human beings is a very well-researched, well-documented phenomenon. Demonize an enemy, put people in power over supposed exemplars of that enemy, exempt them from control, and ... shit happens.

You may think you know in your heart of hearts that you would have behaved differently under the same circumstances. But you might be wrong. A lot of good Germans were.

How far up can you go with your disgust?

The abuses became systematic when the successes of Guantanamo earned the commander of that juridicial black hole a key role in extracting intelligence in Iraq. That was some time back in October, I think. Now: do you honestly believe that the President was not involved in that decision? He was involved in the decision to set up Gitmo as an "enemy combatant" processing center, wasn't he? And he was apparently pleased with the results, wasn't he?

The beginning of corruption is the belief that it can't happen to you. You say that we're in "...a war of ideas, a war of liberalism (broadly defined) against totalitarianism."

How could you ever have defined liberalism so loosely as to tolerate a U.S. military base on the coast of Cuba as a detention center for the presumed-guilty, a site that was chosen precisely because it presented so few jurisdictional issues to anyone who wanted to work their will on whoever ended up being incarcerated there? (Which, as it happens, included a few 15-year-old boys among those randomly swept up as "enemy combatants.")

Where was your outrage then?

True liberalism requires the rule of law. You appear to have made an exception. That exception has bred monsters. Surprise, surprise.

As that great liberal, John Quincy Adams, wrote: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy ...."

And not least because it is all too easy to become monstrous in the process. I'm sure Adams would have agreed. It's especially easy to become monstrous under the assumption that America is somehow above all that, despite having gotten morally mired (and in even worse ways) within living memory.

Of course, that "living memory" does not include the living memory of George W. Bush, who probably barely remembers all those critically important missions he flew over Texas in the Vietnam War. He never chopped Victor Charlie's ear off a corpse and laughed about it, or napalmed a village.

You reap what you sow. You sowed misplaced trust. You now reap endless disgust. At least locate the disgust where it belongs: with yourself, for having been such a useful idiot, and with the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, George W. Bush, who, if he'd been a true shining exemplar of your vaunted liberal spirit, would have made sure that America ran the most squeaky clean occupation government in the history of anything, because he knew as well as you do what's at stake.

As it is, you're only asking him for "50% satisfaction" on this issue. That's too tolerant by half. And by your own standards. Just start applying them to the facts, and you'll see, soon enough. Bush might like to see liberal democracy rise in the Middle East, but that was always a chancy proposition (if not an ideological bedtime story to keep the kids calm and quiet), and smart gamblers always hedge their bets.

As it is, I think America still has some exit strategies that could turn cash-flow-positive as soon as five years. And that's a lot of campaign contributions in the future. Stop thinking so bleakly. Start thinking about how else we're going to fill our gas tanks in a world where there have been no major oil field discoveries in the last 15 years. If we give the Kurds the city of Kirkuk and surrounding areas as a buffer zone, in exchange for 80% of the oil developed, we can even declare partial victory for some very vague semblance of liberal democracy in Iraq, even as we mostly retreat. I mean, it's $400 billion worth of oil reserves, and can only go higher as world supplies tap out. The occupation has been expensive, but not that expensive. Really, there are still silver linings. And those silver linings were computed long in advance, by the most oil-industry connected administration in history. That, you can depend on.

Michael Turner, the only useful fool around here is you.

Michael Turner, I thought you promised to go away.

Maybe if you discovered that it's possible to argue with people without attacking them personally you would get a better response around here. Must you always insult people who don't share your opinions?

Oh, and by the way. I am not a good German. I am an American. And Bush is not Hitler. Germany in the 30s and 40s had far worse trouble than being presided over by a Republican.

I'm not sure I agree with his last para, but I thought that Michael Turner's post was insightful and accurate. It may have been a damning indictment of a particular way of thinking, and you may be upset because you recognize that mindset as your own, but it was in no way a "personal attack", nor did it compare Bush to Hitler or the U.S. to Nazi Germany in any sense other than as an unarguable example of the way that people who are not particularly evil can find themselves behaving in an evil way if the circumstances are right.

Michael, you are right to be disgusted with the actions of the troops, though the anti-Leftists have a point that the condemnation seems overblown.
Is your disgust with the criminal acts themselves, or with the publicity? Belmont Club Wretchard notes that US prisons are similar, often worse; after noting how similar these pictures are to trophy pictures in sex abuse pornography.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) is instructive of human nature.

I suggest a more open military court-martial of Gen. Karpinski (the probable "head on a platter", deservedly so). And also the Col. who headed Mil. Intel, and pretty much condoned the humiliation.

Finally -- let Iraqis control the prisons! It's time to put more US forces under control of Iraqis, and with the Iraqis having more authority, they will become more responsible. Or not.

Irresponsible elected Iraqi leaders are how the US will lose, if we lose. MOST, not all, but far more than is now evident, most discussion should be focused on how the US can help develop responsible Iraqi leadership. More local city council elections would certainly help.

Tom: Is your disgust with the criminal acts themselves, or with the publicity?

The acts, of course.

Michael,

You responded we need to placate the Iraqi civilians who don't know which way to jump.

If THAT's what you think, then THIS scandal means very little period. Want to placate the Iraqi civilians who really are on the fence? Then taking Fallujah and Najaf apart, killing Al Sadr and destroying his militia without mercy will do more to convince the undecided Iraqi's to come to our side, that we mean business and that we WILL make Iraq safe and free than anything having to do with the abuse.

Well, there's a series of acts of varying criminal intensity.
Humiliation abuse is probably more of a misdemeanor crime then tortue abuse would be.

Rape is certainly a heavy criminal offense.
My point is to focus on individual acts by individuals, if there's going to be "justice".

Gen. Karpinski is much, much more guilty than Rumsfeld. That female soldier (L. England?), almost certainly trying to prove she's as "tough" as the men, who is laughing at the naked Arabs is guilty of ...what crime is that: "laughing at a naked prisoner"; "taking photos of a female soldier laughing at a naked prisoner"? Well, it's almost certainly something much more general. Do you know the crime you think she is guilty of? I actually don't; prolly vague "abuse of prisoners" -- NOT torture.

And individual justice for these soldiers in an unclear chain-of-command situation (Police vs Intelligence) is going to be tough.

In the US Naval Academy (1974), for instance, there was a night formation: socks, jocks, and lockboxes. Humiliation; not quite naked. (Stopped in 1975, in preparation for women going in 1976). Did you look at Zimbardo's site?
http://www.prisonexp.org/

http://tomgrey.motime.com/1083957356#271581
Or mine (too-pro America?)? I conclude that every dictatorship is a prison experiment.

If worse acts are going on, like today in Sudan, than the concern seems more over the publicity than the acts. This is a very damaging double standard. Similarly the US prison rape scandals -- for 20 years...

Yet I, too, am deeply saddened, activated, by this US Army abuse, and it's more compelling than UNSCAM or Iranian nukes or Sudan genocide. I'm a little upset at myself, as well as others, at the upset level compared to the acts.

"How can I look him in the eye and tell him our troops were as kind to the Iraqis as I promised him they would be? The answer is that I can’t."

Yes you can. Does this wipe out all the positive stories from Iraq? What percentage of the armed forces are we talking about here, compared to the total soldiers in theater? Don't insult them or your friedn's intelligence. This propaganda is designed to rattle your confidence. (Not the abuse or the reporting per se, but the huge scandal that has been made of something that is really a medium sized scandal, including doctored photos (for the Brits), and fake abuse claims are beginning to come out of the woodwork.)

And don't read Sullivan, he's gone even more derailed than you have. Sheesh, get a grip people.

NYT-Safire : Rumsfeld Should Stay

Guys-

This thing is just a bump on the road to where we're going. We should not be cavalier, but we should not overreact. Too much handwringing is not productive. We're still the good guys here, who else even comes close? If we act human in the eyes of the world - i.e. admit the mistake, apologize, and take corrective action, then only our enemies will hold it against us. And, as has been commented already, they will hate us no matter what.

The more interesting question, though not the subject of this thread, is where this road with the bump is leading. I think what will emerge is a long term, mini cold war scenario with Iran and other assorted bad guys. My advice would be to give the Sunnis and the Shiites Sadam-lite (which they seem to be doing, turning over Fallujah to these ex-Republican guards) and turn Kurdistan into the Democratic city on the hill, as well as our cold war military bastion, kind of like West Germany was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/international/middleeast/10ABUS.html?th

(Ask and ye...)
"Specialist Sivits, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company from Maryland, is charged with maltreatment of detainees, conspiracy to maltreat and dereliction of duty."
It seems a public trial to start 19 May; some kind of plea bargain to avoid a more serious general court martial.

I kind of think the "right thing" to do now, given the crimes, seems to be American policy.

You can ask your Syrian friend, as the trials go on, does he know of ANY such trials in any Arab country? The point is NOT that America is perfect; but it has high ideals & standards and is trying to achieve them.

And the loyal opposition, Left or Right, combined with a free press, helps to make America do more of the right stuff.

Grant,

So, yep, I'm fucked. Fucked in a way I've never been fucked before.

You're not fucked. You didn't get hurt, you didn't hurt anybody else. You got lucky. Your car, on the other hand, sounds fucked. You can get another car.

I'm not trying to be flippant and I agree you should engage in soul-searching. Just don't beat yourself up too bad. You drank and drove like millions of dumb kids. Just like I did. Everyone who drinks and drives should do some soul-searching regardless of whether they've had an accident. Just because you're in the statistical population of drunk drivers that had an accident doesn't make you any worse than the drunk drivers who got away with it.

So don't drink and drive ever again. Ever. And be thankful nobody was hurt. You'll be fine.

Michael Totten writes: "Michael Turner, I thought you promised to go away."

I don't remember promising to never come back.

"Maybe if you discovered that it's possible to argue with people without attacking them personally you would get a better response around here. Must you always insult people who don't share your opinions?"

I apologize for calling you a "useful idiot". That was stupid of me. It's far more productive, in the long run, to allow people to come to their own conclusions about themselves. But hey, while we're here, why not work on that a little? In blindly citing a State Department report with doctored statistics as proof that we're winning the War on Terror, when you clearly have more time on your hands now for fact-checking, you have made yourself useful to people whose honesty you now have ample reason to doubt. And frankly, I find it idiotic that you didn't question such statistics, given both the source and your own declared political leanings. So why didn't you question them? Why didn't you look at the bigger picture, instead of just a few numbers? Why must you do such knee-jerk cheerleading? It reflects poorly on your objectivity. Not to speak of your diligence.

"Oh, and by the way. I am not a good German."

Did you think I was suggesting anything about your ethnicity? The question is: how is that ordinary people - 21st century West Virginians or 1930s Bavarians - end up doing bad things? Heaping abuse on people who heaped abuse on others doesn't get to the root of the matter. Nazi Germany supplies a wealth of answers because it supplies a wealth of examples. Good people, under certain conditions, can end up doing very evil things indeed. To think they must all be punished because of that is to fall prey to the very same Treaty of Versailles logic that Wilson fought so hard (and in vain) against. Logic that you, for that matter, fight so hard against when you characterize extending loans to Iraq instead of outright grants as being immoral. Being disgusted with untrained trailer trash won't get to the more important question: who put untrained trailer trash into interrogation centers in prisons, and what were they expecting would happen? If it was anybody with half a brain, there were expecting exactly what we got. And did it anyway, because that was the point.

"I am an American."

Duh.

"And Bush is not Hitler."

I never said Bush was Hitler. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a party to torture. You don't know that; I don't know that. We don't know what he might have orally signed off on in private. Pretending you do know that is tantamount to saying that you're a fly on the wall of the Oval Office.

The Occupation government is presided over by a career diplomat, L. Paul Bremer, the number one protege of Henry Kissinger, who was party to killing something like a half-million Cambodians. The replacement agency for the Occupation authority will be presided over by a career diplomat, John Negroponte, who suppressed evidence of torture in Contra training camps he personally helped set up in Honduras. These are your torchbearers of liberal democracy? People who try to calculate how many wrongs will, when piled up high enough, eventually make a right? The people who appoint them aren't aware of these aspects of their resumes? Ahem.

"Germany in the 30s and 40s had far worse trouble than being presided over by a Republican."

No, but both have been presided over by an elected leader who used scare tactics and dishonesty to justify persecuting innocent people and invading other countries. A situation doesn't have to reach the level of Nazi Germany for many of the same basic human patterns and behavioral principles to apply. Believing otherwise - believing that your own wonderful country and its citizens couldn't possibly stoop to such things - is to set your foot on the slippery slope.

Answer my question: if I had suggested a year ago that a year hence we might be talking about Americans torturing Iraqis in the same prisons where Saddam had been torturing Iraqis, wouldn't you have said I was being hysterical and paranoid?

If I had suggested any such thing back then, it would have been as a possibility, not as a certainty. To me, however, it would have been a distinct possibility. And why? Because, at root, I don't believe that good pro-war liberals like you, or anti-war independents like me, or for that matter, just about anybody in this comment section, is utterly incapable of doing what was done at Abu Ghraib, either under the American Occupation or under Saddam Hussein. We're all human beings, we're all manipulable. Only the rule of law stands between any of us and our own latent bestiality. At some level, in this situation, somebody decided that the rule of law was an inconvenience. And Camp X-Ray seemed like such an excellent precedent ....

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and certain people in the prison system in Occupied Iraq were given absolute power over their wards. They were given it. Any thorough inquiry of how this situation finally came to light after the Taruga report - which was the third investigation begun after allegations of mistreatment surfaced not long after the beginning of the Occupation - will have to include questions about who turned a blind eye, and why they did that. And whether they were actually turning a blind eye.

My bet: that investigation takes you all the way up to carefully-arranged levels of plausible deniability. The buck won't stop where it should stop - it will flutter away in the wind. It's not like they haven't had time for damage-control contingency planning, after all. Taruga's is the third report.

Or were they just making the dumb mistake of thinking Americans couldn't do anything so evil? Until that kind of thinking is uprooted, they are on the slippery slope of evil. The only question is: where on that slope are they now? After all, nothing is so corrupting as the belief that corruption can't happen to you.

MJT,

How can I explain all this to my immigrant friend from Syria who loves America but does not trust the government? How can I look him in the eye and tell him our troops were as kind to the Iraqis as I promised him they would be? The answer is that I can’t.

Maybe you don't have to. Maybe he understands human nature better than you do. Maybe you just promised him too much. No human endeavor is perfect. He probably knows that.

Your friend should still love America and he should still NOT trust our government. That sounds like the right reaction to me unless it involves conspiracy theories. He should love America because of our ideals even if the reality falls short, as it must.

Isn't The Economist the British finacial magazine that was pulling for Gore in the 2000 election? Hardly an unbiased source, if you ask me...

Now, were I the Dictator For Life (I won't insult your inteligence by claiming to be Benevolent...), the units involved would be disbanded in disgrace. The units would be stricken from the rolls and the individual members who weren't involved in the scandal would have to prove a completely spotless record to avoid getting a General Discharge.

Michael Turner,

No, but both have been presided over by an elected leader who used scare tactics and dishonesty to justify persecuting innocent people and invading other countries. A situation doesn't have to reach the level of Nazi Germany for many of the same basic human patterns and behavioral principles to apply.

So the only difference between Bush and Hitler is one of scale? You are a loathesome piece of shit. And yes, I'm going with ad hominem here. That is all you are worth.

Your gloating over what happened at Abu Ghraib couldn't be any more thinly disguised. You disappear for months and then show up all of a sudden with your long-winded diatribes that say nothing? You love what happened there because it gives you a club to beat America with. Fuck you.

Welcome to the Popular Front, Mike.

Glad to have you on board.

spc67 and E Rey nailed it, in my opinion. Fire the loads of people spc67 said.

E Rey: ...there is a limit to what you can tell your Syrian friend, even in the best of times.

That's just it, MJT. You're not jaded enough. Our countrymen will commit atrocities in the future. Electing Kerry won't prevent that, but it may screw up the WoT, as you admit, which is of vital importance, to put it mildly.

Punish the rats to the utmost of our ability, but don't have a spasm and shoot yourself in the foot just because you don't accept that this sort of thing will happen.

There is an illusion that Praktike's popular front can make a world of kindess and justice. It can't. No one can. Accept the permanence of evil, and fight it. That's all you can do. Thinking you can do more causes spasms that bring more evil.

Get a grip MJT, this is manufactured outrage, by nearly everyone involved. As has been pointed out, the abuse occurred, it was reported, there was an investigation, and prosecutions were/are in the offing.

This was being dealt with. The sensationalizing of the photos is a ploy by those who want to take down the present administration any way they can.

Some one above predicted civil war in the U.S. I won't go that far, but I will predict that there will be political violence in connection with the election this year.

Your Syrian friend either gets it or he doesn't. In any case, he's not going back to Syria, is he?

I upbraid Michael Totten for not checking facts. But then I go and spell "Taguba" as "Taruba." Ah, the beginning of corrupted spelling is the belief that it can't happen to you.

Anyway: HA, my good friend! Nice to hear from you again! Gotten your Ann Coulter lookalike sex-change operation yet? I'm so relieved you're in on this exchange. You're my protection in case I get booted from the Totten comment section. If he boots me for ad hominem attacks (as he has warned me in the past), but not you (who went unwarned), it will be just too, too shameful. You with your considerably more scandalous record of scurrilous ad hominem attacks, will go unmolested. But I will be gone. The hypocrisy will be too nakedly obvious for any reasonable person here, and Totten will be left with only his cheering section. So keep that covering fire coming! I've still got some barricades to scramble between.

Oh, but while I'm here, let me address this: "So the only difference between Bush and Hitler is one of scale? You are a loathesome piece of shit. And yes, I'm going with ad hominem here. That is all you are worth."

Actually, HA, if you'd read with half an eye and half a brain, you would have understood my real point: for all practical political purposes (read that twice, please), the difference between Hitler and any of us is the rule of law, the understanding that it applies to all of us or none of us. Any system of law (or lack thereof) that doesn't recognize this core fact about human nature is the road to tyranny. Putting a high officer out of the loop in her own prison system, and interrogating prisoners under no particular set of rules, was a lapse of the rule of law. Nobody should be surprised at the upshot. It appears to me at this point that it was an intentional lapse. Cite reasonable sources that show this proposition to be wrong, if you want to argue the point. But don't ask
the International Committee of the Red Cross

HA gibbers on: "Your gloating over what happened at Abu Ghraib couldn't be any more thinly disguised."

How I really feel about this is something I can't prove, any more than anyone can prove (at least at this point) whether Bush condoned the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I can tell you this: after reading the initial reports, I wanted to go take a hot shower for three hours. Even that would have left me feeling unclean. What am I supposed to do now, as an American in the world? Hold out the Bill of Rights wherever I go, and say: "This is the real America"? That's only true to the degree that those words are being respected. (Yes, including the 2nd Amendment, thank you for asking.)

The spittle-spray continues: "You disappear for months and then show up all of a sudden with your long-winded diatribes that say nothing?"

Actually, I poked my head in to see what Michael Totten's first word on the subject would be. I was disappointed - he chose in his very first posting on the matter to take on critics of the administration who mindlessly assume that the torture was condoned from the top. Now, to me, that's a hypothesis, not a foregone conclusion. I don't claim to know one way or the other. I'm waiting to find out. Why am I worried? Because I love my country, but I fear my government. So should you. Our government is out of control right now.

HA pops a rivet and the crowd goes wild: "You love what happened there because it gives you a club to beat America with. Fuck you."

You know, HA, it's not enough to just get cosmetic surgery to look like Ann Coulter. You should also develop a little subtlety. A little finesse. I hate Ann Coulter. I love her sly little innuendo techniques, however, much as I hate to admit it.

As for my partisan sympathies in all this, if the GOP comes out of the convention this year with a Powell-Giuliani rescue ticket, and I saw a chance to work on that campaign, I'd be on it in split second. Powell wouldn't have to do much in the way of coming-to-jesus dramatics to win my vote. All he'd have to say is that he was hoodwinked by OSD on the WMD "evidence" he presented at the U.N. It's plausible. I'd believe him. (Mostly, anyway.)

And I don't like Kerry. Many, if not most, of my best friends are Republicans. To get through what's coming, we need an Oval Office with experience, with some continuity with previous administrations, one with respect from all branches of government, from the military and the people of America. A good GOP ticket might deliver that. But Bush-Cheney again? Sorry. I'll hold my nose and vote the other party in.

HA, if you want to think I'm some left-wing nutter Antichrist, that's your problem, not mine. I know where I stand.

Cybrluddite: As a devoted reader of the Economist, I can tell you that they endorsed Bush in the 2000 election. They also called for Clinton to resign in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal.

This is all BULLSHIT. The Islamic world thinks that American is run by a Jewish Conspiricy for cripes sake. Do you really think this incident really "lowers" respect? If they respected us we wouldn't be there in the first place.

The only thing going on here is more Leftist collectivist guilt. Do I personally feel any responsiblity or shame about this incident? Nope and nor should any other hawk. This is an INTERNAL military affair, the responsibility lies with the chain of command.

Ultimately the media did its job to make the military accountable, now it should flow down the chain of command. Calling for Rummie or Bush's head because of our "shame" is just the latest Leftist anti-war BULLSHIT about an incident that will mean nothing in scope of history (unless "usefull idiots" actually fall for it, as I am worried is happening reading Totten and Sullivan and other pro-war Lefties). Where was the outrage on the Left from burned corpses of American "mercs" being dragged through the street? Yet they cry tears of shame for genocidal killers force to...wear womens underwear? Ohhh the shame!

The comparisons to My Lai and Vietnam are just more proof of irrelevent hippies trying to scape some meaning from their wasted lives.

We are going to lose the war. The Vietnam comparision IS apt. The Left is going to screw America (and the World, and Justice) yet again and slap themselves on the back for it.

"How can I explain all this to my immigrant friend from Syria who loves America but does not trust the government?"

How can he look you in the eye while he lives under the boot of a totalitarian terrorist dictatorship which he supports through his tolerence for it?

"Dishonorable people in our own military have done far more damage to the second front than any herd of illiberal anti-American jackasses could ever have hoped to accomplish"

Maybe, but their actions will probably support the front of guns and bombs - and probably save American lives. The fear of being humiliated "as a women" might deter resistance to the Coalition authority. Sad but true.

But why discuss pragmatic truth when we can cry in shame?

OK, I admit it, I didn't read the rest of the discussion. But before I leave this morning I had to speak up.

The reason that I'm opposed to Rumsfeld resigning is purely tactical. He's been the best SecDef that we've had. He has political courage, conviction, and has effectively and ruthlessly pursued the terror war on all fronts. The imfamous Memo of some months ago shows that he's thinking creatively about the challenge we're in.

I'm not usually an Indispensible Man kind of person, but Rumsfeld comes close.

It's because he hasn't put a foot wrong yet that I feel like even this horrible scandal doesn't quite do it. It comes close, really close for me, and I can fully understand the calls for his resignation.

For now, let's be content keeping the pressure up on making sure that everyone who participated in these crimes is charged. And that they're charged to the fullest extent of the law (not some lesser wimpy charge as previous post pointed out). And then after a fair trial, that they're punished to the fullest extent of the law. That's our system, and we need to stick to it.

Those are pretty big priorities already. What I'd hate to have happen is a high level resignation, then a new SecDef focused mainly on "healing" (ie putting the issue behind him) and only taking token half-measures. The heat is rightfully on Rumsfeld; foot-dragging should earn his resignation-- but you've got to admit that the Pentagon was hitting this before it reached the papers.

Anyway, time will tell. Like I said, there are very few SecDefs who are worth keeping after something like this. Maybe I'm wrong.

Those who call for the resignation of Rumsfeld are those who never supported this war and smell political opportunity the way sharks smell blood in the water. CALLING FOR THE RESIGNATION OF RUMSFELD IS A DIVERSION FROM WHERE THEY DO NOT WANT OUR ATTENTION FOCUSED. People who want to win the war on terror and defeat the patriarchy of the Moslem brotherhood CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA, GEORGE J. TENET. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERROGATORS (in terror gators). HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPREAD OF U.S. TERROR.

AND CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BRIGADE COMMANDER, COLONEL THOMAS M PAPPAS AND LT COL. STEVE JORDAN, HEAD OF JOINT INTERROGATION AND DEBRIEFING.

Tenet failed to predict the Cole bombing, the 1998 Indian nuclear tests, 9/11, the reality of WMD and the various bombings of embassies around the world. He probably is behind the movement to fire Rumsfeld in order to deflect attention from his own dirty record.

Fire Tenet, Pappas and Jordan

____________________________________

Rumsfeld is too valuable to sacrifice on the alter of outrage. And more to the point, if we want to fix the problem instead of just moan about it, he's one of the few people who has a winning record against Pentagon politics. Let's assume big changes need to be made in the way the U.S. Military and CIA handles prisoners. Who is the person most likely to get results?

Everybody enraged by the pictures should be. There's a gut place that recognizes evil. We need to be outraged, and we need to see justice.

But you don't cut off the head if the hand is gangrenous.

MTurner says:
"...the difference between Hitler and any of us is the rule of law, the understanding that it applies to all of us or none of us."

Well, maybe to you. Hitler was legally elected, and then got himself made Fuhrer legally, and then got the Reichstag to pass lots of laws, all nice and legal that ended up murdering lots of people. All legally.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

Becareful of what you wish for. You just might get it.

Michael:

I'm disheartened to see that you and Sean, along with Zeyad and Andrew Sullivan, seem to have gotten caught up in the hysteria of the moment. For an alternate view see Roger, Omar and Ali, Nelson Ascher, or countless others.

The question I'd like to ask, in all earnestness, is why Rumsfeld in particular has become the target of so many people's ire? The reason I'm curious is because I'd like to figure out how this, god I hate this word, "meme" started. For me it seemed to just emerge out of nowhere. The pictures came out, then all of a sudden bam! Rusmfeld must resign! blares from editorials and headlines. It's a subject of polls on CNN and on that news service in the elevator. If we take as a given that punishment for the problems at Abu Ghraib must redound to the highest possible levels, (I, by no means take that as a given but it seems to have become, thanks in large part to the media, the political reality of the moment), whose "head must roll"? Should it be Bremer, who as I understand it is our number 1 guy in Iraq? I know he's leaving anyway so maybe firing him would seem an empty gesture. Then, why not just the General in charge of the prison? Well, she's already on leave. Why not Kimmit, Why not Abizaid, Why not Sanchez? Or, if we must why not all the way up to Myers? And, what about those in the intelligence community who seemed to have played a huge part in this? The call for the Secretary of the Defense to resign seems utterly illogical, especially considering that there are indications that the reason we've been encountering so many problems with the occupation is because it has been managed by State and not Defense. So, if that's the case, why not Powell or Armitage? Yet, none of these other alternatives were even considered. The leap to Rumsfeld taking the blame was instantaneous.

Never mind that Rumsfeld organized and managed the war plan which lead to the toppling of Saddam's government in three weeks with a minimum of casualties on all sides. Never mind that Rumsfeld brilliantly and bravely overcame a hidebound military and state department bureaucracy who both wanted large-scale aerial bombardment before the ground invasion, a strategy which would have made things safer for our troops but would have undoubtedly resulted in significantly more Iraqi civillian casualties. Rumsfeld's lean approach has saved thousands, thousands! of Iraqi lives. Yet now, he is somehow the symbol of all evil.

Everything that Rumsfeld has been directly responsible for has been a spectacular success. The flawed WMD intelligence was Tenet's problem. The flawed occupation seems to have been a result of the CIA, and the State Department. I've seen no indication that the management of Iraqi prisoners was even in his bailiwick. And, despite the efforts of some in the media to spin it as such, he hasn't tried even remotely to cover anything up! Remember, it's not the crime it's the cover up. Well, where's the cover up?

Seymour Hersh is one of the most connected journalists in the world. His only rival in access to high level sources might be Woodward. Anyone who's been remotely paying attention knows that our government is in a state of dangerous internecine warfare. Hersh is often a party to these disputes by seeking out sources on one side of the divide who, most often anonymously, leak him stuff to hit the other side. I don't want to be conspiratorially minded here but Hersh's involvement here and the instantaneous creation of the "RUMMY MUST GO!!!!!!" meme seems awfully suspcicious.

The anti-war left is not even remotely responsible for this mess

Because they take no risks, and because they take no responsibility, the anti war left is not even remotely to blame for anything. They would have peacefully allowed Saddam to stay in power. They would have peacefully allowed the Taliban to stay in power. They’re always willing to peacefully allow terrorism, oppression and genocide to grow and thrive, because, like, war is bad and all. When their inaction causes tragedy, they’re not to blame. They blame capitalism and overpopulation or something. Being anti-war means never having to say you’re sorry.

Abuse is an awful fact of prison life, during wartime and peacetime. There should be a very thorough investigation, and when all the facts are in, decisions should be made about which heads should roll. We should do this because it’s the right thing to do. The opinion of the Arab street should be, as always, irrelevant.

Our good intentions in Bosnia have resulted in recruiting stations located in mosques, which have been linked to Al Qaeda & terrorism in Iraq. Trying to win Iraqi hearts and minds without targeting & destroying the growing fundamentalist movement is a tactic that will never work, no matter how good our intentions are.

"Everything that Rumsfeld has been directly responsible for has been a spectacular success"

Wow. That is the most stunningly bizarre statement I have heard in a long time.
Need I mention just one word?

Iraq.

Oh, I forgot, we won that war, right? As in - take the capital, overthrow the leader, and then, it is no longer a "war".

Name calling tends to be counter-productive, but this can only be called for what it is - base stupidity. Wars entail more than moving military force from the border to the capital. Wars cannot be considered "won" at the moment that the commanding general gets to smoke a cigar while sitting in the ousted tyrants throne. It is this complete cluelessness about how the real world operates, how real people respond, how thought must be given to the question of "what happens next", that infects this administration to the core. Bush, Cheney, Wolfie, Rumsfeld. These are not grown-ups. They have proven to be childish morons of the worst sort - i.e. morons with the greatest military force in history at their disposal.

whatevs Tano. You're a crushingly boring partisan so I think it's pointless trying to "discuss" things with you.Re-read the comment. Someone of your obviously great intelligence shouldn't have to read a mere blog comment twice. The point of the comment was to aportion out blame/responsibility for various aspects of the Iraq war and occupation/reconstruction to various administration figures, or, more accurately, to try to generate some non-hysterical, non-partisan discussion of it. I hadn't realized that the current "meme" was that Rumsfeld was responsible for every aspect of the situation on the ground in Iraq and that all the other figures I mentioned had no responsibility. It's tough figuring out who Satan is to you and your ilk from moment to moment. Most often it's Bush, but then sometimes it's Wolfowitz, sometimes Cheney, sometimes Chalabi, sometimes anyone who's ever sorta a kinda said anything half way positive about a Republican ever at any point in their life etc. I guess Rumsfeld is the current target. But then, saying that Rumsfeld is solely reponsible for all the problems in Iraq will be tough to square with attacking all the others, who by that logic are blameless. I'm sure you'll figure out some kind of creative solution though.

How can I explain all this to my immigrant friend from Syria who loves America but does not trust the government?

Hmmm...loves America, doesn't trust the government...your buddy from Syria sounds like a true American already.

You're a crushingly boring partisan so I think it's pointless trying to "discuss" things with you.

Pot to Kettle, Pot to Kettle, You're black!

In what seems like genuine puzzlement, Eric Deamer asks: "The question I'd like to ask, in all earnestness, is why Rumsfeld in particular has become the target of so many people's ire?"

What rock have you been sleeping under? Rummy treats the press very dismissively. People notice. And hold grudges. In the World According to Rumsfeld, anyone who disagrees with him publicly is treated as naive child. This adds up after a while.

"Rusmfeld must resign! blares from editorials and headlines."

He's called most of the shots in this war. Why are you surprised that people hold him responsible when he is responsible?

"If we take as a given that punishment for the problems at Abu Ghraib must redound to the highest possible levels ... whose "head must roll"? Should it be Bremer, who as I understand it is our number 1 guy in Iraq?"

Not a bad choice, given that these problems have apparently come to his attention at times, and he did nothing.

"I know he's leaving anyway so maybe firing him would seem an empty gesture."

Good point. Given his apparent complicity, I guess you'd have to throw some criminal negligence charges on top of firing him. Fine with me.

"Then, why not just the General in charge of the prison?"

You mean that general who was told not to interfere, to stay out of it, by the MI people? Maybe she didn't have a choice. Maybe she stayed on after that point in some vain hope of influencing events.

Why not Kimmit, Why not Abizaid, Why not Sanchez?

Why not all of them, if they were complicit? And criminal negligence charges for them as well.

"Or, if we must why not all the way up to Myers?"

I'm really warming to this. You can't tell me that, after three investigations, none of which prompted any obvious action, that he didn't know.

"And, what about those in the intelligence community who seemed to have played a huge part in this?"

I'm starting to like this list.

"The call for the Secretary of the Defense to resign seems utterly illogical, especially considering that there are indications that the reason we've been encountering so many problems with the occupation is because it has been managed by State and not Defense."

The problems with the Occupation started with Rummy's judgment call to not put enough soldiers into the initial invasion force to stabilize Iraq in short order. He had the best advice. He dismissed it. Iraq has been tumbling on the edge of control ever since. Why not lay that at his doorstep?

So, if that's the case, why not Powell or Armitage?"

Powell, if you haven't noticed, has been relegated to Secretary of State Except for Iraq. You're saying he's complicit in any of this mismanagement, apart from his U.N. testimony? Be explicit. Just how?

"Yet, none of these other alternatives were even considered. The leap to Rumsfeld taking the blame was instantaneous."

Paint a bull's-eye on your back, and you'll start taking arrows. He painted his bull's-eye on a long time ago, with his strutting arrogance, his pandering to INC and Chalabi WMD "testimony" about WMD, his override of Shinseki's advice on staffing the invasion force.

"Never mind that Rumsfeld organized and managed the war plan which lead to the toppling of Saddam's government in three weeks with a minimum of casualties on all sides."

As we know now, and should have suspected all along, the Saddam loyalists never planned to put up much of a fight. Until later. They were probably pretty happy about Rummy's understaffing of the invasion force. They were probably also pretty happy to be underestimated in the early occupation period, since being underestimated is always a big advantage in a war.

"Never mind that Rumsfeld brilliantly and bravely overcame a hidebound military and state department bureaucracy who both wanted large-scale aerial bombardment before the ground invasion, a strategy which would have made things safer for our troops but would have undoubtedly resulted in significantly more Iraqi civillian casualties."

If the Saddam loyalist plan was to cut and run before American ground forces, they could just as easily have cut and run beneath American B-52s. And mostly have escaped with their skins intact - another "turkey shoot" would have raised some eyebrows about American intentions. There would have been more casualties, certainly, but not many more. They were in guerrilla mode from almost day one. Guerrilla's hang back, wait for the right moment.

"Rumsfeld's lean approach has saved thousands, thousands! of Iraqi lives."

Not if his screwups ultimately lead to an untimely departure from Iraq, urged on by an enraged American electorate, leaving Iraq in much the same shape as before, except for ... a power vacuum. Civil wars are notoriously bloody. It's not over until it's over. You think it's over? What rock have you been sleeping under?

"Yet now, he is somehow the symbol of all evil."

Or at least a symbol of a series of ridiculous screwups. Personally, I lean toward "evil."

"Everything that Rumsfeld has been directly responsible for has been a spectacular success. The flawed WMD intelligence was Tenet's problem."

Eh? What about all that "intelligence" coming out of Chalabi's people? It's Machiavelli 101: don't trust defectors, refugees, exiles - their intelligence will always be biased toward getting someone else to invade their former homeland.

"The flawed occupation seems to have been a result of the CIA, and the State Department."

Citations? Sources? Particulars?

"I've seen no indication that the management of Iraqi prisoners was even in his bailiwick."

He's Secretary of Defense, and these abuses were committed under Military Intelligence. Are you saying that Military Intelligence is not under OSD? What department then? Housing and Urban Development? Health and Human Services? Oh wait, I know: the EPA, right?

"And, despite the efforts of some in the media to spin it as such, he hasn't tried even remotely to cover anything up!"

That's to be determined by an investigation. We don't know what he's been hearing, or what information he's been asking for, or what he's seen. I don't know. You don't know - unless you're bugging his office. You're just taking his word for everything.

"Remember, it's not the crime it's the cover up. Well, where's the cover up?"

This recently released report is the third report that has been commissioned to look into allegations of abuse in Iraq's prisons. How do you do three reports, and not release the results? By covering them up, that's how.

According the ICRC, this stuff has been going on practically since the beginning. Under the Red Cross's "rules of engagement" for investigating these sorts of problems, they don't release any information they can't get permission to release, as a basic strategy for ensuring future access. Well, now it's out, so the ICRC can start talking. Why didn't somebody in the Occupation start talking much earlier, like last summer? Because ... they were covering it up. Does it have to reach the point where they are covering up a coverup before you'll call it a coverup?

"Seymour Hersh is one of the most connected journalists in the world ... Anyone who's been remotely paying attention knows that our government is in a state of dangerous internecine warfare. Hersh is often a party to these disputes by seeking out sources on one side of the divide who, most often anonymously, leak him stuff to hit the other side. I don't want to be conspiratorially minded here but Hersh's involvement here and the instantaneous creation of the "RUMMY MUST GO!!!!!!" meme seems awfully suspcicious."

You mean the State Department, so often shut out of the action by OSD when State tries to get multilateral and diplomatic, might be out to get Rummy? I'd be so surprised.

And so grateful that they finally did the right thing: getting a very damaging report about a long-standing problem out in public view. Unless you want to tell me you're happy that you didn't know about all this until now? If so, then tell me this: how much longer did you want to stay in the dark? A whole year instead of 9-10 months? Until Bush was reelected? Or maybe just forever?

What Rob and Eric said.

We got so scared by 9/11 that we decided it was Ok to compromise our ideals, just a little bit, just for a little while, here and there. And this is what happened.

The reflexively anti-left contingent here needs to let go of the tactic of always jumping on some lefty straw man when the chips are down. If the abuse is acceptable to you, then stand up and say so. And if its not, then stand up and say so, and leave the cartoon lefty boogeyman out it. It's so weak.

By far the most tiresome argument is the one that suggests we're OK because our enemies are so bad. America holds itself to a higher standard, and that must be made plain.

Calls for Rumsfeld's resignation are premature, if you ask me. We need patience in the face of this, and a committment to due process and justice. But if a fair investigation does yield a petering out in a cloud of plausible deniability, that's unacceptable. License was given. It should not have been given. Who gave it?

Michael, don't make the mistake of bringing the Economist into it. The Economist is as reflexively anti-Bush as the Nation, and about as credible. Last month their cover story was on "Better Ways to Attack Bush".

It is irrelevent to me. It is irrelevent to the war. It is a tempast in a teapot. An internal affair that will and should be solved by normal means within the chain of command.

It is only relevent to those Leftist who use it as yet another partisan hammer. It is as transparent as glass.

But they played the shame card. And like trained seals, the wobbly lefties whip themselves in shame and the hawkish cowards cry themselves to sleep.

OBL guessed right. Americans are cowards who are so guilty with shame that they will roll over to Islamism. Mark my words, the West will probably lose the WOT. Bush f-ed up in invading Iraq because he has made our weakness and insecurity even more apparent. Better to bow to Allah slowly rather than falling on our face in shame.

Next step for AQ - blow up a commuter train in DC and we will have no choice but to pull a Spain and shamefully admit we "deserve it" for making genocidal killers wear S&M outfits.

When dealing with such an emotional issue, I find it wisest to consider basic facts, then move from there.

First, so far as I have read or heard, no one believes these offenses were justified or should be excused. So, from the outset, we need to can the "They knew, but let it go" or "They wouldn't have minded, if there guy was in charge" garbage.

Next, from what I have read, the Military began investigating these charges last October. The wheels of the UCMJ move slowly sometimes, but that is not Rumsfeld's mistake. What's more, when pressed, some Democrats have indicated Rumsfeld was never even the target, but merely a way to hurt Bush.

Does anyone have even the slightest piece of evidence that Bush would have approved of torture and humiliation? Put up or shut up. More than a year of cheap shots by the Left has worn my patience thin. Fortunately, most folks have learned how to spot the spin.

Finally, some of our allies will be displeased by the scandal, but our enemies aren't going to change. Really, groups which have murdered civilians and mutilated corpses, are going to be shocked by the hazing stunts of a few guards? Get real.

We're doing what we need to be doing. We have stopped what happened, we're investigating and the guilty will be punished. There is no cause for witch-hunts, hand-wringing, or political doubletalk.

" There is no cause for witch-hunts, hand-wringing, or political doubletalk."

But how does one become a centrist mush-head then?

from eric:

Get a grip MJT, this is manufactured outrage, by nearly everyone involved.

Okay, then, what sort of action by America might provoke genuine outrage? Raping and torturing prisoners doesn't do it for you, how about gay marriage, is that outrageous?

Hi Micheal,

Still read you when I can and comment when I get the itch - though I try to get the itch only once in a while......

It seems to me that your position here is just a little bit contradictory. You say that it is the abuse that bothers you, rather than the publicity. But your actions don't seem to mesh with that opinion.

I have noticed several instances in the past year where Prison abuse has become publicized in various ways. The California attorney general implies he approves of prison rape, the NY attorney general talking about how his state Prison system has a certain "edge" to it. In these cases - and others, it wasn't even news that prisons are sadistic places, the only news was that a public official seemed to approve of it......

The Military policeman you mention in the previous post was in the middle of an obuse scandal (where he worked when not in the active Service), and his punishment was much less than possible in the military case.

If my (somewhat sketchy) memory serves, you didn't have much to say about these other prison abuse issues - nor did you bring them up in the current posts. This leads me to one of three conclusions:

1) You care more about prisoners in Iraqi jails than prisoners in American jails. - Hard to believe.

2) You care more about this case because its been publicized and so you notice it more.

3) You care more about this case because it hurts our broader war effort - involving our war with guns and our war with ideas.

Maybe you can come up with a different choice - but those are the only ones I can think up.

I would say that if you choose either 2 or 3, that means that you really care about this case because of the publicity, rather than the obuse itself. I reason that to be the case because in case 2 you wouldn't care about it (enough to write about it) without the publicity. And in case 3 you wouldn't care about it, because it wouldn't affect our war effort if not for the publicity.

James

Yeah, if all of us among the ranks of the disturbed have no cause in this case to "play the shame card," when IS it fair?

DJ, I think it remains to be seen whether the guilty will be punished. Undoubtedly some will. But what is the path the investigation will take if and when plausible deniability rears its head?

I know it's not easy to root out this sort of stuff. My sense of human nature is that at some point or even at many points, some commander A told some subordinate B to "get everything you can out of those prisoners. I'm not picky about how you do it, and I don't want to know how you do it. But by god, Iexpect results."

Anyone want to face this? Or is everyone happy sitting back on their haunches and sniping about us "hand-wringers?" Jebus.

Michael Turner:

Thank you for giving a serious answer to my question. The most effective part of your presentation was when you gave a timeline on the investigation(s). However, I've seen various different timelines. See the Mudville Gazette for a very comprehensive one.

As to the rest of it. Here goes:

Rummy treats the press very dismissively. People notice. And hold grudges. So, in essence, if someone doesn't kiss the press's collective ass they deserve to be the victim of a witch hunt? For me personally, the way Rumsfeld handles the press just makes me like and respect him all the more. I grant that being antagonistic towards the media might not be prudent for a public figure. If you kiss the press's collective ass like Colin Powell you get the kind of glowing coverage that Powell gets. However, the fact that someone doesn't get along with the media doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are actually good at their job. Anyway, your comment bolsters my assertion that there is a disproportionate focus on Rumsfeld because the press is so hostile towards him. If the media is to have such a prominent roll in making or unmaking the careers of national leaders, at the very least, they need to be treated with a high level of scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny I think should be focused on Hersh and his agenda(s).

If the Saddam loyalist plan was to cut and run before American ground forces, they could just as easily have cut and run beneath American B-52s. And mostly have escaped with their skins intact - another "turkey shoot" would have raised some eyebrows about American intentions. There would have been more casualties, certainly, but not many more.

I'm amazed at how in favor you are of heavy aerial bombardment, even if it leads to higher rates of civilian casualties. Is this the new left position?

You mean the State Department, so often shut out of the action by OSD when State tries to get multilateral and diplomatic, might be out to get Rummy? I'd be so surprised.

It's not about whether I am "suprised". I just don't find the phenomenon of a government at war with itself with the media as a key player in the fighting to be benign and I can't believe that anyone would.

Does anyone have even the slightest piece of evidence that Bush would have approved of torture and humiliation? Put up or shut up. More than a year of cheap shots by the Left has worn my patience thin. Fortunately, most folks have learned how to spot the spin.

From Josh Marshall's blog on May 7:

The (must-read) Nelson Report ...

We can contribute a second hand anecdote to newspaper stories on rising concern, last year, from Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage about Administration attitudes and the risks they might entail: according to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration...the highest levels...whenever Powell or Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as "around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners...."

-- let's be clear: our source is not alleging "orders" from the White House. Our source is pointing out that, as we said in the Summary, a fish rots from its head. The atmosphere created by Rumsfeld's controversial decisions was apparently aided and abetted by his colleagues in their callous disregard for the implications of the then-developing situation, and by their ridicule of the only combat veterans at the top of this Administration.

Really, groups which have murdered civilians and mutilated corpses, are going to be shocked by the hazing stunts of a few guards? Get real.

Maybe not. But possibly US soldiers videotaping Iraq guards raping young boys might get up their ire.

Dear anonymous troll above:

These are serious allegations. You've got one report of a report by an anonymous source, without even a link supplied. Then you just coyly mention something with no link and no source. Please stop anonymously libeling our soldiers. Thank you.

Michael-

What did you think of Bush's comments at the Pentagon today, especially his effusive praise for Rumsfeld?

Is that a step towards resolving the issue?

For me it's not, and I'll tell you in a heartbeat, but I am quite interested in what you think.

I keep hearing a lot of emotional comments.
Stuff like:
Fire Rumsfeld.
Put the soldiers who did this in jail.
This is only about politics, it's no big deal.
We are at war, those Iraqi's deserved it for trying to kill our guys.
Somebody's head has got to roll.

I think we're all responsible. We have an administration who needs a gun pointed at them before they'll apologize. We have a rotten reputation in the world, not just the middle east. If Rumsfeld knew about this, then he didn't do his job. If he didn't know about this, then he didn't do his job. Either way, this is not a person I feel should be in charge of our military. I'm really dissapointed in our administration. I guess "Mission Accomplished" means we made those ungrateful Iraqis pay for what they did to us even though I have no idea what they did to us.

Please stop anonymously libeling our soldiers. Thank you.

"The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News."

http://tinyurl.com/2gzer

To this: "but you don't win the battle for hearts and minds by suggesting Iraquis they could be abandonned"

Michael Totten answered this "I didn't suggest any such thing."

No, you just suggested you would vote for Kerry and he would do just that.

Remember Vietnam? There were two turning points: My Lai and the assassination of an NVA prisoner during the Tet by a South-Vietnamese general. Both, had a powerful impact on American's public will to continue the war.

Only, that the press made a deep silence on the much worse atrocities perpetrated by the NVA and VC against South Vietnamese soldiers and civilians
or the mass graves at Hue. Only that the press "forgot" to mention that the NVA guy was not in uniform and was part of a unit who had just entered the living quarters of South Vietnamese officers and assassinated their wives and children. Each one of these offences meant
it was legal to kill him (Geneva doesn't apply if you violate the rules). And the second one meant that most people would have understood the Soutrh Vietnamese colonel.

But American people din't keep perspective (the press helped with that) and no longer supported the war, even by proxy, ie by funding the South Vietnamese Army. End result was millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese killed after the fall of Saigon.

Now you want to vote against Bush. Unfortunately his opponent ios not Roosevelt or Truman but Kerry.

Z wrote:

"Okay, then, what sort of action by America might provoke genuine outrage? Raping and torturing prisoners doesn't do it for you, how about gay marriage, is that outrageous?"

Go ask bin Laden, you silly troll.

It has been interesting to hear all the concern about these images coming from Iraq. In themselves they aren't that big of a deal, but I had a similiar response as you. It seems many Americans have as well. WHY?

Here's my theory. Since shortly after 9/11 we have heard the reasoning behind invading Iraq, as each reason has become invalid (or was illogical from the begining) more people have said 'what the hell is going on here?' There are three reasons remaining; Get rid of Saddam (did it), free the Iraqi people(getting there) and establish a democratic, secular Arab state. THis prisoner abuse issue directly counters #2 and puts in peril #3. THis administration has squandered all the goodwill this country had after 9/11 and has screwed up the arguably noble cause we undertook in Iraq. THis may be the straw that broke the camels back.

This is very embarrassing to us Americans who felt we were doing something noble in Iraq. Part of our outrage after 9/11 was how could these attack out country as evil. We know our country stands up for freedom and justice. It's like when you argue how virtuous your sister is then somebody shows you a picture of her drunk, dancing naked in the local bar.

You are right, Bush should be voted out of office. I don't think Kerry will surrender on the WOT. He may extricate us from Iraq sooner than Bush would but I think that's a good thing. All the people who say,' But if we leave now there will be a blood bath' only need to look around the world to see there are many bloodbaths going on right now. How are they any less important than Iraq?

BTW, Michael Turner has some good points. In the right circumstances we could all do such horrible things.

This scandal was unearthed when journalists became aware of an investigation being conducted by the US Military. Therefore, it appears that due process is at work. Let's let the situation play out before we get hysterical and start chopping off heads. I thought that we had progressed beyond Judge Roy Bean: "We'll give them a fair trial, then we'll hang them."

Moreover, I'm not sure that this scandal is quite as bad as it appears. Certainly there was humiliation and inappropriate behavior, but I'm not sure there was much actual torture. Appropriate punishment should follow, but the magnitude of the abuse needs to be taken into account.

Also, it appears that the sexual dimension of what went on has not gotten much play. I think we have to consider very carefully whether female (or homosexual male) guards should be overseeing male prisoners. (I don't expect much reflection here, however, as it is the very antithesis of our PC world).

Finally, one question remains to be asked: What idiot thought that it would be a good idea to abuse prisoners AND THEN DECIDED TO TAKE PICTURES OF IT? The sheer stupidity of this amazes me. Once the pictures were taken, it was inevitable that they would become public.

To even CONSIDER a vote for Kerry AND at the same time believe that we are in fact involved in a REAL war with real and dangerous enemies,is not a credible course of action.
Whatever Bush's flaws --- I believe he will stay the course in Iraq and not leave until it is a measurably better place than it was before,and in better conditions than it's "enlightened Arab neighbours".
Whatever Kerry's flaws ---- I don't believe that he will stay if it becomes Politically Difficult,as it would considering the state of the Democratic Party(which I believe you have pointed out previously).
Thats all I need to know or to believe at this moment.So much as I am revolted and disgusted with the nasty petty sadism of the photos,such an incident would never cause me to IGNORE the larger issues.
Please don't jump ship now --- you really wouldn't like your new friends over at Make-Believe-Land.

via InstaPundit

http://mullings.com/

Read this posting and ease up on self flagellation.

These latest prison torture scandals will make very little difference in the war in the long run. This war is not about us winning their hearts and minds. It's about the Iraqis winning their hearts and minds. In other words, the Iraq war is about bringing freedom and individual sovereignty to this region (not for any other reason but good ol' self-defense, as it should be). Even partial success at sowing the seeds of individualism in this region (including the virtues of capitalism) is what will help win the wider war on terror. Yes, it may take a generation or three, and a lot more spilled blood, but when people there begin to realize the virtues of a free society (not through our good/bad actions, but their own actions), terrorists will start becoming ridiculed and slapped around rather than accepted or tolerated. And with this realization, even the cruder products of Westernization, like Britney Spears, McDonalds, and Return of the Jedi will do the dirty work for us. I mean, how many people who are surrounded by such things really commit terror? My guess is that teeny-bopping, Big Mac eating, light-saber wielding kids (and even the kids who hate them because they like Nirvana, Burger King, and The Matrix better) make pretty lousy terrorists; they'll just have better things to do.

Rumsfeld should go. Then move Cheney over defense and Condi up to VP. That should seal the election for Bush and give us at least a chance in preventing another 9/11 (or worse).

How can I explain all this to my immigrant friend from Syria who loves America but does not trust the government? How can I look him in the eye and tell him our troops were as kind to the Iraqis as I promised him they would be? The answer is that I can’t.
**************************************************
Correct you can't. Send him to this website.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#108420303228571518

Ali. and Mohammed. are Iraqis.(IN IRAQ that do make a difference)
If your boy is not willing to listen to THEIR views?

Anything you say won't matter he has his mind made up the US is the Great Satan no matter what we do, because no matter how much good we do, sooner or later SOMEONE will do something Evil and no few pay attention to the good we do anyway.

For instance You COULD show him photos of our troops playing with and helping children, then again maybe not he would just assume they were pedaphiles

PS I got into it about this on islamonline.net. Posted some links with photos like above mainly because I donated to that charity drive. I asked how many of them who were so shocked and outraged had donated anything to help children in Iraq.

Didn't get any answers.

How can I explain all this to my immigrant friend from Syria who loves America but does not trust the government? How can I look him in the eye and tell him our troops were as kind to the Iraqis as I promised him they would be? The answer is that I can’t.
**************************************************
Correct you can't. Send him to this website.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#108420303228571518

Ali. and Mohammed. are Iraqis.(IN IRAQ that do make a difference)
If your boy is not willing to listen to THEIR views?

Anything you say won't matter he has his mind made up the US is the Great Satan no matter what we do, because no matter how much good we do, sooner or later SOMEONE will do something Evil and no few pay attention to the good we do anyway.

For instance You COULD show him photos of our troops playing with and helping children, then again maybe not he would just assume they were pedaphiles

PS I got into it about this on islamonline.net. Posted some links with photos like above mainly because I donated to that charity drive. I asked how many of them who were so shocked and outraged had donated anything to help children in Iraq.

Didn't get any answers.

Michael,

I rarely post here anymore, but I'm doing so now actually to commend you, rather than argue with you. I think you're right to condemn the barbarism that took place. But why are the actions of those soldiers worse than the actions of those who have killed and maimed thousands of innocents in a foreign country they have no business or legitimate reason to be in? I know they're under orders, just doing their jobs. But if there is blame to be placed higher up in the chain of command for these terrible acts, why shouldn't we look upon worse acts that have been ordered in at least as negative a light? I think the answer is that war's supporters always want it to be clean: No pictures of flag-draped caskets, no pictures of dead or dismembered soldiers or civilians, no pictures of orphan children weeping next to their mothers' lifeless bodies, and of course no pictures of torture and abuse of prisoners. People who are anti-war are always accused of being unpatriotic, spineless, traitorous. But of course that isn't true. I mean, you need look no further down the food chain than the President and Vice-President. After all, did not both these fearless, indispensible leaders take anti-war stands by refusing to kill or be killed in Vietnam? Obviously they've had a change of heart since they came to power and were able to send others to do the dying and the killing. Hey, I understand. People get older, they often get wiser. You wouldn't think such staunch right-wing patriots wouldn't have loved to off a few Commies though...Anyway, you've taken a step in the right direction, Michael. I salute you.

Flipster: Anyway, you've taken a step in the right direction, Michael. I salute you.

While I appreciate the commendation, I haven't taken a step in any direction. It's not like I was pro-torture a month ago.

eric wrote: Get a grip MJT, this is manufactured outrage, by nearly everyone involved. As has been pointed out, the abuse occurred, it was reported, there was an investigation, and prosecutions were/are in the offing.

Z wrote: Okay, then, what sort of action by America might provoke genuine outrage? Raping and torturing prisoners doesn't do it for you, how about gay marriage, is that outrageous?"

eric: Go ask bin Laden, you silly troll.

bin Laden is outraged by gay marriage. They hate our freedoms, remember? You're obviously desperate if you have to drag Osama bin Laden into this argument. Loser.

Michael,

That last comment was meant to be semi-ironic, of course. The commendation was authentic, and I wasn't suggesting that you were pro-torture. I was trying to make a larger point, of course. And I must say, without intending any insult or disrespect, you chose to ignore it, which, unfortunately, I find to be a pattern in much of my correspondence with you: Take on the small aside and ignore the main argument.

James Becker: You care more about prisoners in Iraqi jails than prisoners in American jails. - Hard to believe.

I don't know, James. There's something about going abroad and torturing people that's worse than an American's assaulting one of his own. McVeigh would have been worse had he bombed London instead of Oklahoma City, even though I care about American's more. Our family simply isn't to treat others that way, that's all.

Marek's link, Whatsapundit, and Belmontclub all have soothing reality doses. Evil is ubiquitous and permanent. Accept it face it, and fight it with equanimity and resolve.

Flipster: Perhaps MJT wasn't being flip. Perhaps he was succinctly taking issue with your seeing no difference between minimal collateral damage in a liberation and torture.

Flipster,

I read everything you wrote. I can't and don't respond to everything posted in here because these threads are long. Don't feel slighted. It's just that I am more likely to address a comment about me personally because no one else is nearly as qualified to do it.

Jim,

"Minimal collateral damage". Another thing war supporters do: Twist & turn & contort the English language as much as possible to avoid stating the facts straight out: Death & Destruction. That's what we're talking about in undiluted English. And this liberation stuff is so tired. This has nothing to do with liberation; It's about expanding American hegemony.If you don't believe me, you can get it straight from the horse's mouth: Just read the past writings of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Pearle, the people who are really running this circus.

Flipster: Just read the past writings of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Pearle, the people who are really running this circus.

I've read their work and I don't agree with your characterization of it at all.

Wolfowitz likes to talk about Kitty Genovese a lot. Do you know who she is and what she has to do with all this?

She was a woman who was slowly knifed to death in the courtyard of her New York City apartment building while her neighbors watched and refused to help.

Flipster,

I don't play linguistic sleight-of-hand. As you wish: Innocent people's guts were spilled on the ground. I hope that if I live under a murderous tyranny, a foreign power is able to liberate my country with under 0.02% civilian deaths. And I don't object if this requires that I am one of the unlucky ones with his guts spilled on the ground.

Jim: I hope that if I live under a murderous tyranny, a foreign power is able to liberate my country with under 0.02% civilian deaths. And I don't object if this requires that I am one of the unlucky ones with his guts spilled on the ground.

I concur.

spc67: I do think you aren't thinking through the impact of our response. Who are we trying to placate?

Iraqi civilians who don't know which way to jump right now.
**************************************************
And here is the responces of some of them.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#108386543157546398

Comments (325) Thursday, May 06, 2004

:: Some of the readers asked about my opinion about the interviews that GWB gave to Al-Hurra and Al-Arabeya TV channels and since I'm a CIA agent (I'm thinking of leaving them to work for the Mossad. I've heard they pay better), I guess my opinion would be biased, so I decided to offer you some of the responses I saw on the BBC Arabic which offers a comment section for Arab readers to post their opinions about the hot topics. There were about 30 comments today, since it's still fresh on the site. As usual, the comments from Iraqis-in general-contradicted those from other Arab countries, especially Palestine, Syria and Saudi Arabia. I also found that many of the commentators considered President Bush's speech an apology despite the fact that he didn't frankly apologize.
I've selected some of the comments for translation and it's worth mentioning that about 40% of the total number of comments was positive (sorry, I mean they were supportive of the CIA propaganda).
Here are the translated comments:

-"Thank you Sir for apologizing on the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. Here you opened an important file; I think that those criminals who were responsible for the mass graves in my country (who are now in your jails' cells) should apologize for their massacres against the Iraqi people".
Imad Al-Sa'ad - Netherlands.

-"Who reads the reactions of Iraqis will see how surprised they're by the way the Americans can prove that years of Saddam's rule and of his anti-American propaganda can be washed out by time; here we have the president of the greatest nation on earth apologizes for what a small group of pervert soldiers did. And here, the American press proves that it's free to show the truth. We lived with similar pictures for years until they became the basics of every prison's daily life and we never heard an Arabic paper point them out. These are lessons from the western culture entering the hearts of Arabs, whether the Arab leaders liked or not".
Sa'eed - Diwaniyah/Iraq.

-"I think that President Bush should talk to us to fill the gap between us and I wish I could see the Arab leaders talk to us like GWB did"
Jihad Abu Shabab - Germany.

-"I'm very happy to see Iraqis condemning the abuse and defending the rights of the prisoners and this is the first time they do something like this, which was impossible for them to do under the dictator's regime. I think that our Arab brothers should mind their own business and take a look at their own prisons".
N - Jordan.

-"I think that president Bush was honest in what he said. Those abuses do not represent the American people. As a matter of fact, we can find cruel men with no morals in any country; that's why we should not judge a whole nation for the violations of a small group of people and I'm sure that these will get the punishment they deserve. Here I'd like to direct my question to the Arabic media "where were you when Saddam mass-executed my people and used all kinds of torture against us?".
Reemon A'adel Sami -Iraq

-"I think that President Bush's statement will find acceptance from some of the Arabs, while the majority will not be satisfied with his words whatever apologies they included just because he is BUSH and he is AMERICAN. I'm sure that the American officials are more upset by the event than the Iraqis themselves because this doesn't belong to their culture or their ethics as a civilized nation.
I think that the event took more space than it actually deserves and the media are creating a mountain from a grain. It's enough for us to remember Saddam's doings to comment on what recently happened".
Sameer-Jordan.

And here's one comment from the other side (not a CIA agent).
-"No speeches and no apologies can correct what happened. I can’t describe how I felt when I saw the pictures on the Washington Post; is that why they came from far away? Killed thousands and destroyed a whole country claiming that they came to spread democracy and freedom.
Their media campaign will not make us forget what happened. Shame on their foreheads to the end of time".
Ayman-Damascus/Syria

I hate to crop dust this whole discussion, but I think something is being missed in our expectations of the Abu Ghraib fiasco's impact on the WoT.

We are projecting our Judeo-Christian values into the minds of the Iraqi people. We are outraged by this behavior and naturally assume they must be too. I am skeptical that their disgust mirrors ours for the following reasons:

(a) Based upon Al-Jazeera's coverage, they probably ASSUMED we did such things anyway (I have read that the people of Fallujah were deathly afraid of the Marines because it is believed they eat children--no joke); (b) Such goings-on, while terrible under our standards are pretty darn mild for a country whose police state was modeled after East Germany; © The prisoners where the torture occurred were mostly regime loyalists, terrorists or foreign troublemakers who were not exactly welcomed in most communitities; (d) The remarkable level of genuine outrage in the U.S., well broadcast around the world, complete with Congressional hearings, is a testament to the seriousness with which we take the matter. Ultimately, our response has got be to the most unbelievable component of the whole thing to the average Iraqi. Imagine, in Saddam's day a successful torture session earned you a promotion. Today it earns you 20-to-life in Leavenworth.

The Iraqi people know the difference, even if the risibly corrupted Middle East media and asshats like Robert Fisk do not.

She was a woman who was slowly knifed to death in the courtyard of her New York City apartment building while her neighbors watched and refused to help.

And the horrific irony is that in the system Wolfowitz set up, little boys are raped while American soldiers videotape the proceedings. We replaced passive depravity with its active cousin.

Michael,
I haven't commented in a while here but let me say point blank that as of right now I am voting for W. However, if he fires Rumsfeld to feed him to the political grandstanding going on, then I will not vote for anyone.
POINT
1) Donald Rumsfeld didn't abuse the Iraqi prisoners.
2) Donald Rumsfeld is running 2 wars and an International War on Terrorism.
3) Donald Rumsfeld at the same time is trying to re-organize, unbureacratize and modernize the Pentagon and our fighting forces for the 21rst Century warfare on terrorism.
4) Donald Rumsfeld might be the most intelligent and analytically smart member of the Cabinet.

On a final note -
I saw Rumsfeld testify in front of the Senate. I have to say besides the fact that he is quick and firm the man is brilliant. He was taking fire from all sides at once and while being contrite and standing up big and acting like a man in the face of a potential catastrophy, he never hemmed or hawed even when asked if his job could be on the line, quitting etc... he conceded that may be a possibility.

The guy was the smartest person in the room BY FAR!

Now you explain to me, how firing a guy like that from the cabinet of our country at a time like this, is somehow benefiical to us as Americans?

The Democrats don't care about taking this controversy in relation to the big picture or how aggrandizing it might effect our soldiers on the ground, THEY ONLY WANT SOME POLITICAL BLOOD, AND WHO BETTER IF NOT CHENEY, THAN RUMSFELD.

ANYONE.... GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION HOW FIRING THIS MAN DOESN'T HURT OUR PLANNING FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM FOR YEARS TO COME.

Mike Nargizian

A few here have characterized The Economist as a reflexively anti-Bush rag. In fact, The Economist endorsed George Bush for President in the year 2000. They actually made a reasonable case, as I recall.

Are they pissed off at Bush now? I think it's called being willing to admit having made a mistake. I think it's also called moderate conservatism. That's sure how they sound to me. Whatever happened to that anyway? I kinda liked it. On even-numbered days, I even think I am a moderate conservative.

In response to my "...the difference between Hitler and any of us is the rule of law, the understanding that it applies to all of us or none of us."

... eric writes: "Well, maybe to you. Hitler was legally elected, and then got himself made Fuhrer legally, and then got the Reichstag to pass lots of laws, all nice and legal that ended up murdering lots of people. All legally. Sometimes the law is an ass."

Um, excuse me Eric, but did you not read the part where I said: "... it applies to all of us or none of us"? By which I mean to include Jews. Did you mean to exclude them?

You have written utter nonsense, unless you, personally, don't include Jews as "us." It would be illogical for me to conclude from this slip alone that you're an anti-semite. It's a reasonable inference, however, to conclude that you are an ass. After all, you've certainly made yourself one, right there, in black and white.

But I'll withhold judgment in case you want to say something like, "oops, sorry, got that one wrong, I guess. What I meant to say is ...."

When I say "the rule of law", I mean something that could never mean "the rule of a vast majority of Germans over other German citizens in a German group they've come to regard as lesser folk, even as enemies, for whatever stupid reason." I would have thought that would be clear to anybody who was thinking clearly. But I elaborated with "it applies to all of us or none of us" just for the slightly clue-impaired. For all the good it did me. Sigh. Some things you can explain all day, and if people just don't want to hear ....

I wrote: "You mean the State Department, so often shut out of the action by OSD when State tries to get multilateral and diplomatic, might be out to get Rummy? I'd be so surprised."

Eric Deamer writes: "It's not about whether I am "suprised". I just don't find the phenomenon of a government at war with itself with the media as a key player in the fighting to be benign and I can't believe that anyone would."

Bureaucratic infighting at cabinet level has been a feature of every administration I can remember, and leaks to the press have been part of it. I'm sure this pattern was noted even before the Constitution was written, but ... oddly ... we got the 1st Amendment anyway. Gosh, maybe somebody back then did a back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis, and weighed in on the side of freedom?

It's not benign in itself, I'll agree. But the notion of a self-adversarial government is in the architecture of our government -- by design. And for good reason. It's yet another check on power that would otherwise go unchecked.

And if you think power has gone unchecked recently, well ... you didn't happen to read this story about some inmates at a prison called Abu Ghraib? Where some of the victims were possibly innocent of any crime? Where they were being tortured in violation of international law, military codes of conduct, and the current law (such as it is) of Iraq? And in precisely the kind of situation that could have been foreseen? And prevented? Especially insofar as any such pattern of abuse, if it came to light, might endanger the whole agenda of making Iraq a free country? (I'm being generous today -- I'll assume that agenda is more than just ostensible.)

Just wondering if you'd noticed that story. I think it's been in the press a lot recently.

Flipster wrote, in defense of the proposition that this is all just about American hegemony: "Just read the past writings of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Pearle, the people who are really running this circus."

Michael Totten responds: "I've read their work and I don't agree with your characterization of it at all."

While I'm loath to attribute purity of motive on the basis of public statements by public figures, I agree with Michael here. For one thing, it would be stupid of them to talk about American hegemony openly. For another, some of these people might be sincere. Sincere rationalizers, perhaps. But sincere.

Totten: "Wolfowitz likes to talk about Kitty Genovese a lot .... She was a woman who was slowly knifed to death in the courtyard of her New York City apartment building while her neighbors watched and refused to help."

A signal incident within my own living memory. However, let's not get simplistic here. For one thing - New York City had police, under