Media Proves Again How Out-Of-Touch They Are With Reality
I was watching the news today and on a break from pilorying Vice President Cheney for having “covered up” his hunting accident this weekend, a piece came up about the new Abu Ghraib photos, implicating even worse treatment of terrorists at the infamous Iraqi prison.
What purpose does the release of more photos of an old story serve? Clearly, I thought, this will only further incite America-hatred among those in the region (and in fact, here at home) who opposed the liberation of Iraq from Saddam. After all, the “bottom’s been gotten to” as the old lady who used to baby-sit me would say, and people have been held accountable. Not much more could be constructively gained.
Apparently what’s clear to me isn’t clear to Australian media outlets. As the CNN piece continued (I can’t find the transcript, but if you can, I’d love to receive it), some guy from SBS, the Australian news outlet which released the photos addressed the issue of further endangering coalition troops (yes, including Aussies) by making the images public.
His reaction to the suggestion they were likely exacerbating the danger the troops face was (paraphrase): American and Australian troops are daily in tremendous peril. I don’t see how the publication of a few photos like this would put them in any further danger.
Oh really? I don’t know if SBS is following it, but nut-jobs around the Muslim world are trying to destroy everything in sight because somebody published cartoons that they consider to be insulting to Muhammad. With the story of riots and killings over something as innocuous as political cartoons still making the news daily, does this guy really believe what he says?
It’s clear many on the left have lost their sense not only of proportionality, but also any sense whatsoever. It doesn’t take a genius to predict what’s going to happen “on the Arab street”, as they say. To deny this (and worse, to actually think people will believe you when you do) demonstrates a clear separation from reality.
It’s almost as nuts as, say, going to the Jeddah Economic Forum during a time of war and going on and on about how bad America is. Who’d be so crazy as to do that?
40 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well, to the left, the blue-state elites and the MSM (much overlap in those groups), soldiers are basically a bunch of disposable red-state hicks, who are only useful when they are dead and can hence be used as propaganda props to disparage the Administration. So, who cares if releasing a bunch of old pictures (without any context, mind you) leads to more soldiers getting killed. That actually helps the left and the media in advancing their agenda.
Comment by V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - February 16, 2006
Yep!
Comment by sonicfrog — February 16, 2006 @ 1:33 pm - February 16, 2006
Yep, this from the same media that is to politically sensitive towards muslims (ie chicken-shit scared) to publish a few cartoons…
Might inflame the Muslim street after all…
I guess it’s ok to inflame them when the media wont be the target…
Comment by Keith, Indy — February 16, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - February 16, 2006
They’ve already been published in Egypt. Didn’t flutter a burka.
I’d like to see them on the front page of every paper in the US.
News is news. The “arab streets” reaction has given us the right to see what has upset their delicate sensibilities.
Comment by hank — February 16, 2006 @ 1:55 pm - February 16, 2006
hank: “Didn’t flutter a burka” do you mean the Abu Ghraib pics? Or the cartoons?
Either way, I am totally prepared to eat crow if nothing happens as a result of the release of these photos.
Are you prepared to eat those words if otherwise?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 16, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - February 16, 2006
I’m referring to the cartoons.
And I don’t know what you mean. Why should either of us eat crow?
These cartoons are news. They should be seen. That’s all.
Comment by hank — February 16, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - February 16, 2006
I’m over this Cheney thing. It was an accident, he finally talked about it and that’s it. I want to know why our government has given approval for the sale of US ports to Arab countries that may possibly have ties to terrorist organizations. Exactly why are we selling ports of call to foreign countries at all? Seems less than patriotic in my view.
Comment by Kevin — February 16, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - February 16, 2006
Hey Kevin, I want to know why HowieDean and the DNC have deserted GLBTs by dumping the Outreach Office and –horror of horrors– removed the mention of GLBT people from the Grass Roots Political Report just published?
Ports, ports? We don’t sell no stinking ports.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 16, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - February 16, 2006
Not sure if you guys saw this, or not, but Iran has changed the name of Danish pastries to Roses of the Prophet Muhammad. lol
Comment by republic of m — February 16, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - February 16, 2006
R9…. makes as much sense as “freedom fries”…. as they say: Birds of a feather….
Comment by Jim — February 16, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - February 16, 2006
Another Hoosier!
Comment by rightwingprof — February 16, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - February 16, 2006
8: Huh?
Comment by Kevin — February 16, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - February 16, 2006
Oops…hit send to quick. What the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand? I’m sure there will be some post about both topics soon with plenty of chance to respond. I’m just so tired now of hearing about this whole thing about Cheney from all sides.
Comment by Kevin — February 16, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - February 16, 2006
I saw a journalist on O’reilly last night defending the publication of this new batch of abu ghraib pictures. She basicly said it’s not the job of journalists to judge the possible impact or consequences of what they report or show. If that were true we’d be seeing many more riveting stories like how paint dries and how my postman parts his hair. The consequences of publishing these pictures is clearly two fold; Make Bush look bad by association, and increase ratings/circulation/profit. We know it’s true. Journalists pretending otherwise look like asses.
Comment by Dave — February 16, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - February 16, 2006
What is the truth on that ports thing? I don’t like the idea of an Arab or Chinese company owning anything of such importance. I don’t know why a foreign firm has to own a port facility anyway. Its not like we can’t maintain them ourselves.
I think the media should continue at least another week with Cheney. America’s journalists(ha ha) have to hit absolute bottom before they can be decimated as they deserve. We’re just too tender-hearted to do it yet.
Comment by VinceTN — February 16, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - February 16, 2006
America’s journalists(ha ha) have to hit absolute bottom before they can be decimated as they deserve.
Based on the Cheney incident, they’re at the bottom of the Marianas Trench trying to figure out if their drilling equipment will work under multiple atmospheres of pressure.
As for the ports issue, yeah, it’s kind of disturbing, but no less so than the Clinton Administration approving the transfer of missile technology to the ChiComs to advance their nuclear program by decades. I wonder if the people raising a fuss about A-Rab companies buying our ports were upset about Billy’s doin’s.
Comment by V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - February 16, 2006
And why is it the same people who are SO concerned with national security that the thought that our ports might be run by Heathen Rug-Kissing A-Rabs* thought it was just awesome that the New York Times revealed the classified terrorist wiretapping program? And why have they expressed any concern over the ACLU suing to stop the government from wiretapping known al Qaeda affiliates? Are they also concerned about the ACLU suing to make sure radical imams preaching hatred of the waste and inciting terrorism can’t be deported or barred from our shores?
I mean, it almost seems like the only time they care about National Security is when it can be used as a Spewing Point to attack the administration, but surely that can not be the case. **
* sarcasm
** ditto
Comment by V the K — February 16, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - February 16, 2006
#4 – Amen to that.
Comment by Calarato — February 17, 2006 @ 9:48 am - February 17, 2006
“What purpose does the release of more photos of an old story serve?”
What a statement of pure blindness.
1.) There are many good reasons for releasing them. One would be to allow people to know what actually occurred, what was being done in their name. Only on that basis can one make grounded decisions about whether to vote for the people and their friends or not: namely, what they actually do (in this case, order torture). Another reason would be to make this administration accountable for its actions–it is supposed to be the “accountability” administration, and yet only the lackeys got punished, not the ones who forced the soldiers into this situation in the first place. It’s hard to see how they can be “accountable” if we aren’t even allowed to know what they were having people do, now is it? A third reason would be to try to get this sort of thing stopped, because, as you seem unaware,
2.) this is not “an old story”–its still going on, in Guantanamo, in secret facilities in Romania, etc. etc. Presumably it is also still going on in Iraq, as well, since Rumsfeld said at the hearings that the action he would take would be to stop soliders from photographing torture. And it’s also still an active story because the ones ultimately responsible have not been punished for their crimes against humanity (I would say that deliberately torturing innocent people is a crime against humanity–you may not). If the defining quality of a terrorist is that a terrorist deliberately attacks civilians, well, then… we shouldn’t be torturing civilians, should we? You seem to forget that many of the people being held were supplied by warlords waiting for a bounty, and that others were simply swept up in random sweeps.
If you really were concerned about the effect this might have, then wouldn’t it be best to prevent the actual torture from occuring in the first place? Then it would be impossible for reports about it to go anywhere.
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - February 17, 2006
In response to your question, you might read Salon’s statement about it:
Why we’re publishing the new Abu Ghraib photos:
“America — and the world — has the right to know what was done in our name.” “Abu Ghraib cannot be allowed to fade away like some half-forgotten domestic political controversy, which may have prompted newsmagazine covers at the time, but now seems as irrelevant as the 2002 elections. Abu Ghraib is not an issue of partisan sound bites or refighting the decision to invade Iraq. Grotesque violations of every value that America proclaims occurred within the walls of that prison. These abuses were carried out by soldiers who wore our flag on their uniforms and apparently believed that Americans here at home would approve of their conduct. Rather than hiding what they did out of shame, they commemorated their sadism with a visual record. That is why Salon is willing to publish these troubling photographs, even as we are ashamed to live in a country that somehow came to accept that torture and prisoner abuse were simply business as usual — something that occurs while a sergeant catches up on his paperwork.”
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - February 17, 2006
So what, in that evaluation of America and our soldiers, is different from what the Left has always said about us? All the research by our military and government dealing with this gets no credit. We have looked into it and are dealing with issues as they occur. Running all this over is just wallowing in hate for America with the dark hope that it will make our efforts that much harder in the future.
Only the Left could embrace that much spite. Your blanket assumption that this is typical and universal at all American locations only proves our point of not trusting the people dragging this back up. You’re not clever, blog responder. Your leaders/heros, even less so. We already know you hate us and everything we stand for. There’s no need to prove it.
Comment by VinceTN — February 17, 2006 @ 8:20 pm - February 17, 2006
#20
That’s patent Bullshit and you damn well know it. Or you’re too damn stupid.
America and the world already knows what happened there. Hell, the DNC Times ran it front page for over a month. It’s been handled and the only reason to show more pictures is to agitate.
How much more proof of bullshit do you need than the liberal MSM is sooo concerned for the feelings of Muslims that they won’t show the Mohammed cartoons, but they’ll show this?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - February 17, 2006
“Plame-gate didn’t work. Spy-gate didn’t work. Cheney-gate didn’t work. Well hell, let’s dredge up Abu Ghraib again. That’ll piss people off.”
Sorry to tell you, Responder, this will fail as all the other attempts have.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 17, 2006 @ 8:34 pm - February 17, 2006
VinceTN writes: “All the research by our military and government dealing with this gets no credit. We have looked into it and are dealing with issues as they occur.”
Credit has already been given for prosecuting the lowest-level perpetrators, yes–how could it not? The soldiers were prosecuted.
But nothing has happened to the ones who engineered the whole thing in the first place and led the soldiers to enter into a moral no-man’s land. So no credit deserves to be given for prosecuting people who haven’t been prosecuted, namely the ones ordering and supporting all of this in the first place (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc.).
As for the concern for the soldiers–maybe outrage should be directed at the fact that they are being asked to commit crimes against humanity, don’t you think? How does asking soliders to torture respect the soldiers?
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - February 17, 2006
VinceTN writes: “Your blanket assumption that this is typical and universal at all American locations only proves our point of not trusting the people dragging this back up.”
I never said it occurred at all American locations. That is your fabrication.
It did, however, occur at many other places than Abu Ghraib (although Abu Ghraib was bad enough). And, as I’ve pointed out, it is still going on, in numerous places (not “all” places, whatever that would mean).
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - February 17, 2006
ThatGayConservative writes: ‘“Plame-gate didn’t work. Spy-gate didn’t work. Cheney-gate didn’t work. Well hell, let’s dredge up Abu Ghraib again. That’ll piss people off.” Sorry to tell you, Responder, this will fail as all the other attempts have.’
You may have a point. If few Americans care that their soldiers are being ordered to torture innocent people, then you are right: nothing will be done. Whether allowing torture to occur in our name is a good idea, however, is another question. My guess, off hand, is that our torturing of innocent Iraqis will not contribute to their love for us.
What seems to get missed in all of this is that, horrible and disgusting as the actions of extremist and violent Muslims abroad may be, we are ultimately responsible for our own actions and decisions, not those of the Muslims abroad. And for this very reason–that these horrid acts are being done in our name–we should be concerned to stop them.
Comment by blog responder — February 17, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - February 17, 2006
blog responder:
Please go no further with your diatribe before presenting some sort of proof or evidence to support your accusation (repeated several times throughout your comments) that these abuses were somehow orchestrated by the higher commands.
By the way, I’m sure you’re aware the general in charge of the facility has also been punished. But I guess “lowest-level perpetrators” like her don’t count for you?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - February 17, 2006
And also:
“And for this very reason–that these horrid acts are being done in our name–we should be concerned to stop them.”
What is it about holding those responsible for these actions accountable that doesn’t satisfy you?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 9:00 pm - February 17, 2006
ColoradoPatriot writes:
“Please go no further with your diatribe before presenting some sort of proof or evidence to support your accusation (repeated several times throughout your comments) that these abuses were somehow orchestrated by the higher commands.
“By the way, I’m sure you’re aware the general in charge of the facility has also been punished. But I guess ‘lowest-level perpetrators’ like her don’t count for you?”
“What is it about holding those responsible for these actions accountable that doesn’t satisfy you?”
Last question first: I am not satisfied because those ultimately responsible, the ones who ordered/orchestrated the torture, have not been held accountable. So far as I know, the general who was punished was not punished for having ordered torture–she was punished for speaking out against what was going on. Unless you had someone else in mind.
1.) As for your first statement, I do not believe that American soldiers simply start torturing people if you don’t stop them–I have a better image of them than you do, apparently–I think they would not have tortured in multiple locations simultaneously, nor to the degree that they did, unless they were supposed to do so or it was desired by those in charge.
2.) Secondly, already the memos which Gonzales drew up to shield Bush against being prosecuted for the torture he was approving are a clear enough sign that Bush was condoning it.
3.) Thirdly, unless you forgot, the FBI agents in Guantanamo who wrote back with their concern over the inhumanities they were seeing, wrote memos which made “it clear that some personnel at Guantanamo Bay believed they were relying on authority from senior officials in Washington to conduct aggressive interrogations. One FBI agent wrote a memo referring to a presidential order that approved interrogation methods ‘beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice,’ although White House and FBI officials said yesterday that such an order does not exist. Instead, FBI and Pentagon officials said, the order in question was signed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2002 and then revised four months later after complaints from military lawyers that he had authorized methods that violated international and domestic law.”
4.) Fourthly, why, when choosing the man to set up the Abu Ghraib complex, would the administration put in charge a man already under investigation by the Department of Justice for torture in the prisons he ran in the US, unless torture was precisely what they intended in the new prison?
5.) Finally, we are already getting reports from people who have been kidnapped by the US and sent to countries for the express purpose of torturing and terrorizing them–see here and here, for example. I find it hard to believe that the administration would not know its own agents are kidnapping people and sending them to be tortured.
I have now presented “some sort of proof or evidence to support [my] accusation that these abuses were somehow orchestrated by the higher commands.” You may not agree with my conclusions, but it cannot be said that I have presented no evidence whatsoever. If nothing else, I think these facts should raise concern. Of course, for me, they are more than reason enough to believe that orders were coming straight from the top. Of course, if the administration were more candid and forthright with their documents, the question could be answered immediately, however the “transparency administration” is anything but…
Comment by blog responder, resurrected — February 17, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - February 17, 2006
responder: to reply to all your points, as enumerated by you:
1) you defy my request to go no further without proof, so I will ignore yet another baseless accusation
2) I had not previously read Gonzales’s much-hyped letter, and now that I have, I’m even more convinced that it makes no case for your argument whatsoever. First of all, Gonzales has no authority within the DoD (nor did he when he wrote this, prior to even becoming the AG). So suggesting that his (valid and correct) advocacy to the President that al Qaida terrorists were not considered lawful combatants and therefore not afforded protections under the GWP is somehow a sponsorship of torture goes beyond even the most exorcized definitions of Leftist conspiracy theories. Further, nowhere in there does it suggest condoning such actions. So with this point, you fall flat.
3) Your suggestion that a handful of FBI informants speak with authority in December of 2004 has been rejected and in fact refuted several times since. The article you site not only admits this, but also even gives the DoD credit for clarifying a poorly-written order that seems to have given certain interrogators the wrong impression that this was acceptable. Hardly the actions of a SecDef who actively (as you suggest) ordered such actions. What’s more, read through that WaPo article a little more carefully, you’ll find phrases such as “suggesting that the ruse was aimed in part at avoiding blame for any subsequent public allegations of abuse”; “They suggest that extremely aggressive interrogation techniques were more widespread”; “some personnel at Guantanamo Bay believed they were relying on authority from senior officials”. If I could only get my lawnboy to work my hedges so well. (Just as an aside, BTW, if you consider subjecting a terrorist who wants to kill you to being “wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music” as torture, God help you if he is released as Kofi wants.)
4) Another article you site as evidence, but did you read this one either? It clearly states that the guy you’re impugning and judging without evidence (BTW) wasn’t even associated with Abu Ghraib after it opened.
5) Again, pathetic. Your first link, to a sob-story about a covert undercover al Qaida agent (heck, if you can level wild allegations without any support, I can at least stand by what the CIA says about this guy) who was detained and deported under the extraordinary rendition policy makes me wonder how useful stuff like this could have been with certain legally residing aviation students prior to 9/11. The second link also does not advance your position as it refers to someone detained by Morocco. Our CIA had only a tertiary role in his detention, and didn’t play any role in his alleged “torture”. None of which matters, by the way, because neither of these cases has anything to do with Abu Ghraib, which is where you allege torture occurred by order of the highest levels of our DoD, an allegation you have yet to support.
So you may think that in your own warped conspiracy-theory mind, this is some sort of conclusive evidence to make you convinced that what you accuse my fellow servicemembers of systematically (as a matter of policy) doing to people actually happened. However, you still have not provided any evidence that supports your claim that torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration.
(Your paranoid fantasies do not count as evidence.)
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - February 17, 2006
Holy crap, I missed this little gem in your reply that definitely should be highlighted:
“So far as I know, the general who was punished was not punished for having ordered torture–she was punished for speaking out against what was going on.”
Please, Please PLEASE provide the part of her official record which supports this claim.
Actually, if you’d like to be bothered with facts, erstwhile BG Karpinski was punished under the UCMJ for dereliction of duty. No charges stemmed from her pathetic book (the fiery accusatory parts of which she didn’t write until after she’d been reprimanded and relieved of duty, but I guess the space-time continuum ceases to work when Leftist conspiracy theories are at stake).
Another interesting thing about this heroine of yours is that she said on CNN that she “absolutely had no knowledge, not even a hint or a suggestion of any such activities.” Hm. Hard to imagine these orders which you say came down from the top went around the general in charge of the facilities. Can you explain that?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 17, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - February 17, 2006
Blog responder, yes soldiers wearing the flag of the U.S. committed such violations within the walls of a prison run by the U.S. But, once the authorities found out about such violations, they immediately began to investigated and had already commenced judicial proceedings long before the media was aware of these photos.
In #24, you say “nothing has happened to the ones who engineered the whole thing in the first place and led the soldiers to enter into a moral no-man’s land” and then go on to charge the higher-ups, including the Secretary of Defense. The Schlesinger Commission investigated this and found that higher-ups were not responsible. But, it seems that for Bush-haters, investigations mean absolutely nothing unless they prove what you believe to be true.
Let me repeat — there is no evidence that Secretary Rumsfeld — and any Bush Administration official for that matter — supported this. None.
And Colorado Patriot does a good job in #30 of discrediting your “evidence.”
To bring up the Gonzalez memos is just silly. Because you have White House attorneys engaging in a very serious legal discussion of what is the proper balance to be struck between securing information necessary to protect our citizens and aggressively interrogating those who might have such information. And there is no evidence that any of those guilty of the crimes at Abu Ghraib had ever seen those.
If you can provide evidence to refute the Schlesinger Commission, please provide it. If not, you’re just engaging in Bush-bashing.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 18, 2006 @ 1:48 am - February 18, 2006
Well, it looks like I’ve got a homework assignment. I’ll deal with each point as I get the time.
Let’s see. ColoradoPatriot writes, regarding #4 (Lane McCotter): “Another article you site as evidence, but did you read this one either? It clearly states that the guy you’re impugning and judging without evidence (BTW) wasn’t even associated with Abu Ghraib after it opened.”
Who can’t read? I wrote that McCotter was “the man [who] set up the Abu Ghraib complex”–? What part of that are you contesting? The article, too, which you claim I didn’t read, says he was “the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there”—exactly what I said.
You seem to imply that, given that he left after setting it up and training the guards, it would have been impossible for him to have any effect upon the behavior of those guards. It would be more believable that he had had no effect, if it weren’t the case that the guards there disregarded the safety and humanity of their prisoners just as the guards under his management in Utah: he has “resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time”–in addition, he allowed rape rings/sex slavery in his Utah prison. Hmmm-naked prisoners abused in both prisons. You say it’s a coincidence. I say it gives one good reason to wonder if he indeed had no effect on the guards he trained in the prison he established.
Let’s, for argument’s sake, say that is was just a coincidence. Still, how could it be a wise decision to appoint a man under investigation for serious abuses at his US prison to set up your Iraq prison, and train the guards?
You say I accuse with no evidence. I don’t believe the shackling of a naked schizophrenic to a chair until he dies (etc.) is a lack of evidence.
Comment by blog responder, resurrected — February 18, 2006 @ 9:08 pm - February 18, 2006
responder:
In response to a request for an interview on Friday, Mr. McCotter said in a written statement that he had left Iraq last September, just after a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open Abu Ghraib.
“I was not involved in any aspect of the facility’s operation after that time,” he said.
That’s directly from the article. You see that part? How do you hold him accountable for what happens after he leaves?
And more specifically, you still haven’t provided one shred of evidence that:
torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration.
Let’s see that. Othewise you’re wasting everybody’s time.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 18, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - February 18, 2006
…in fact, I’ll make it easy for you:
To support your claim, you’d have to produce something like a policy letter signed by Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or someone like that.
Or you could produce someone anyone who was there in the chian of command at the time who would corroborate your wild claim.
Or explain how it is that there was a policy directed from above that the commander on the ground wasn’t even aware of
Sounds like a pretty steep evidentiary hill to climb, but if you’re going to throw around such wild accusations as that, it’s what you should expect.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 18, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - February 18, 2006
ColoradoPatriot writes [quoting the article first:] ‘In response to a request for an interview on Friday, Mr. McCotter said in a written statement that he had left Iraq last September, just after a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open Abu Ghraib.
“I was not involved in any aspect of the facility’s operation after that time,” he said.’
[ColoradoPatriot's remark:] That’s directly from the article. You see that part? How do you hold him accountable for what happens after he leaves?
And more specifically, you still haven’t provided one shred of evidence that:
torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration.
Let’s see that. Othewise you’re wasting everybody’s time.
[me:] Wow. Dude. Wake up! I have already stated in two (or three, depending on your count) posts that the man left after having set the plce up and training the guards. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH YOU on this point, and have been from the very start.
My last post (#33) spoke directly to the question of how he could have an effect that lasted AFTER HE LEFT. You may disagree with my conclusions, but right now you’re being dishonest about what I have said; I provided an argument which deals PRECISELY with your question here, namely how his presence could be relevant to the subsequent abuses even though he was NOT THERE when they occured (in your wording, “How do you hold him accountable for what happens after he leaves?”).
Wow.
As to your other assertion in the last post, “you still haven’t provided one shred of evidence that: ‘torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration,’” it is to that question that the Lane McCotter appointment goes: Why appoint someone under investigation for creating an environment of abuses unless you want further abuses to occur? That is one (of a number of arguments I have presented) that the people in charge wanted these very abuses to occur.
Comment by blog responder, resurrected — February 18, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - February 18, 2006
I give up. I’ve given you several opportunities to reply with evidence of the accusation that
torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration
and you still haven’t. I even gave you examples of what might be evidence. What you reply with is that the guy who opened the facility was, in your opinion a bad guy. Even if I believe the accusations (of convicted criminals) lodged against this guy, it’s still completely beside the point you’re trying to make. That being that
torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration.
At this point, you and I are probably the only people reading this buried post. You’re not going to convince me unless you produce evidence as I had suggested in my previous comment. Good luck, but if you find it, please email it to me as I’m not likely to bother scrolling down all this way to read yet again how you have drawn indefensible conclusions from the weak points you’ve already made over and over again.
If you were trying to convince me that
torture was directed to be performed at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels within the Administration
with what you’ve shown me already, and have nothing else new to provide, then you’ve failed completely.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 18, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - February 18, 2006
It seems pretty obvious to me why the pictures were made public and I don’t know why people just don’t say it. The pictures made public are more proof that the Administration lied when it said the US government does not engage in torture. It’s that simple.
Comment by DanielFTL — February 19, 2006 @ 7:09 am - February 19, 2006
What I find particularly hilarious, DanielFTL and blog responder, is that you and yours said nothing when millions of Iraqis were systematically tortured and murdered at their government’s order with CLEAR commands from the highest echelon.
You’re not interested in torture. You’re interested in Bush-bashing, and you simply don’t care if millions of people die as long as your hatred of Bush is fulfilled.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2006 @ 3:24 am - February 22, 2006
I don’t find any of it hilarious. How do you know “we” didn’t say anything? No, of course not.
“What I find particularly hilarious, DanielFTL and blog responder, is that you and yours said nothing when millions of Iraqis were systematically tortured and murdered at their government’s order with CLEAR commands from the highest echelon.”
Comment by DanielFTL — August 2, 2006 @ 5:39 am - August 2, 2006