« The Moral Clarity of The Bush Administration | Main | The Storm that Brews »
Can Anyone in Here Shoot Straight?
It’s rare that we get a clear-cut view of the twisted lengths to which the Bush administration will go to cover its tracks, but here’s a good one.
At a Pentagon press conference on November 29, featuring Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff head General Peter Pace, Rumsfeld was asked a question about what role U.S. troops should play in stopping abuses by Iraqi security forces. Rumsfeld gave a vague, rambling response:
Q Sir, taking on Charlie's question a bit -- and I can give you actual examples from coalition forces who talked to me when I was over there -- about excesses of the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Defense, and that is in dealing with prisoners or in arresting people and how they're treated after they're arrested. What are the obligations and what are the rights of the U.S. military over there in dealing with that? Obviously, Iraq is a sovereign country now, but the United States is responsible for training and expects to turn over the security mission to them. So what is the U.S. obligation in addressing that, preventing that? And what can we do? And what are we doing?
SEC. RUMSFELD: That's a fair question. I'll start, and Pete, you may want to finish. But we are working very hard to train and equip the Iraqi security forces. So is NATO. So are some neighboring countries. There are a lot of people involved in this and dozens of countries trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs. Iraq knows of certain knowledge that they need the support of the international community, and a good way to lose it is to make a practice of something that's inconsistent with the values of the international community. And I think they know that. Now, you know, I can't go any farther in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of; however, we do have a responsibility to say so and to make sure that the training is proper and to work with the sovereign officials so that they understand the damage that can be done to them in the event some of these allegations prove to be true.
Keep in mind here that the question and Rumsfeld’s answer dealt directly with the conduct of the U.S. military in Iraq.
Following Rumsfeld’s response, a reporter followed up with General Pace:
Q And General Pace, what guidance do you have for your military commanders over there as to what to do if -- like when General Horst found this Interior Ministry jail?
GEN. PACE: It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it.(emphasis added) As an example of how to do it if you don't see it happening but you're told about it is exactly what happened a couple weeks ago. There's a report from an Iraqi to a U.S. commander that there was possibility of inhumane treatment in a particular facility. That U.S. commander got together with his Iraqi counterparts. They went together to the facility, found what they found, reported it to the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government has taken ownership of that problem and is investigating it. So they did exactly what they should have done.
Rumsfeld immediately disagreed with General Pace’s call for action:
SEC. RUMSFELD: But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.
Whereupon General Pace then went right back at Rumsfeld, insisting that the rules called for our troops to act in the face of inhumane treatment by Iraqi forces.
GEN. PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.
Now you know, the Bushies do not suffer dissention in the ranks, so it’s pretty awkward when you’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs publicly contradicting each other on such a sensitive issues.
Not to worry: your tax dollars pay for bright people at the Pentagon to figure these things out, and come up with bullshit stories that they send out into the world with perfectly straight faces.
Let’s listen to what General Pace told Chris Wallace on December 25, 2005 during a Fox News interview. Wallace played a clip of the November 29 press conference exchange, and then asked General Pace:
WALLACE: How was that, having to correct the boss in public?PACE: Well, he and I were looking at it from two different prisms. First, I was looking at it from the question that I was asked, which was in Iraq, if detainees are being abused, what is your responsibility.
And we have very clearly in writing stated — 22 July of this year, as a matter of fact, General Casey put an order out in writing that said everyone had an absolute responsibility to try to stop it.
The secretary, in subsequent conversations with him, was looking at it from a much larger position, the global position, and thinking about troops in other countries. So his position was if you are walking the streets of Tokyo, what would you do. Mine was very specific to the question I was asked.
The secretary clearly expects me to speak the truth as I know it, and he always wants me to make sure that when he and I are in front of cameras and speaking in public, that when we walk away that we have been very precise and direct about what it was.
So the fact that he asked me the question and I answered him in public is exactly what he would expect me to do.
Hmmm. So Rumsfeld wasn’t really wrong….he was just thinking about other countries, despite the 100% focus of the questions on Iraq.
It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. citizen, if they see corrupt leadership being conducted, to intervene to stop it.
keep up the pace y'all,
Otter
A talking Dean Doll....
Is that a joke..??
Well I guess if ahnuld can be a bobblehead....
I am sure that Rumsfield is OFTEN thinking of other countries.
I bet he's thinking about Venezuela right now! And Iran. Syria. And North Korea.
I bet he's NOT thinking about Sudan.
GEN. PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.
But if they only HEAR it and not SEE it..??
Or if they only saw the pics...??
What if they just stitch them up later..??
I like William Rivers Pitt's writing...!
William Rivers Pitt | Going Too Far
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122905A.shtml
William Rivers Pitt is taken aback when Ty, the bouncer at his local bar, breaks the invisible sign which hangs over the door of every drinking establishment in America: "Thou Shalt Not Discuss Religion Or Politics In This Place." Ty, an ardent Bush supporter, asks Pitt what he thinks of the Patriot Act.
Good thread header, Dick...
I have a "reframed" question for *our* legislators: If you see the laws of this nation being ignored by a pResident and a Vice pResident or any member of their administration, are you obliged by the Constitution to stop those individuals from committing more high crimes and misdemeanors and lying to this nation repeatedly?!?
Hey Nonny..
Check this out love, scroll down they have a sidebar issue.
http://www.mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3306&Itemid=42
From Le Figaro:
Philippe Gelie | Power's Wear and Tear Hit Bush's Spokesman
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122905H.shtml
Philippe Gelie writes: The wear and tear on the James S. Brady Press Room has become a reflection of power's wear and tear on the administration.
Hmmm. So Rumsfeld wasn’t really wrong….he was just thinking about other countries, despite the 100% focus of the questions on Iraq.
Posted by dickbell at December 30, 2005 11:11 PM
No, what Rummy was doing was NOT answering the question he was asked, as per frickin usual.
Gen. Pace, not a career politician: "... I was looking at it from the question that I was asked, which was in Iraq, if detainees are being abused, what is your responsibility."
So, answering the actual question asked would have been a novel approach for Rummy... unless of course, he truly was.
Posted by: Christy at December 30, 2005 11:55 PM
Which sidebar issue?
Posted by: marc trager at December 31, 2005 12:14 AM
As near as I can tell from watching the body language of The Cretin and the members of his administration (I usually hit the mute button because their voices make me need a barf bag), none of them know HOW to tell the truth any longer - certainly, their body language tells me they're LYING through their teeth, every last one of 'em. They are so used to LYING, that their memorized circuitous non-answers are the only thing they know how to say.
Ok maybe I have sidebar issues..
An extensive web of financial ties
Group linked to DeLay largely funded by clients of embattled lobbyist
By R. Jeffrey Smith
The Washington Post
Dec. 31, 2005
The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.
During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners will not identify the money's origins.
Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay.
The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.
Mixture of influence and illusion
A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.
Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.
Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.
In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.
A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.
more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10657504/
U.S. death toll in Iraq for '05 nears '04 level
841 soldiers killed this year — just 5 short of last year's toll
Dec. 31, 2005
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq as the year wound down Friday, putting the American military death toll at 841 so far — just five short of 2004’s lost lives despite political progress and dogged efforts to quash the insurgency.
Violence continued on Saturday with gunmen raiding a house near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, and killing five members of a Sunni family, army Col. Hussein Sheyaa said. A roadside bomb also exploded in Baghdad, killing five policemen, 1st Lt. Nadum Nuaman said.
In addition, five members of the Iraqi Islamic party died when a roadside bomb exploded near their headquarters in Al-Khalis, 10 miles east of Baqouba, police said.
In Baghdad, hundreds of cars lined up at gas stations as word spread that Iraq’s largest oil refinery shut down two weeks ago because of threats of insurgent attacks. Nearly three years after the U.S.-led invasion, a fuel crisis again threatens to cripple a country with the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves.
At least 17 people were killed in shootings, mortar attacks and a suicide car bombing in Baghdad on Friday. In the most serious incident, police said nine people were killed in a drive-by shooting — apparently because they were drinking alcohol in public. Two Iraqi army captains were also gunned down in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, as they drove home.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10636018/
Scott Cameron knows.
-----
SIGN TALLYING MILITARY DEATHS UPSETS ARMY
DULUTH, Minn. (AP) - Scott Cameron never imagined his modest memorial to American troops in Iraq would transform a quiet street here into the latest front of the nation's tense debate about the war in Iraq.
His sign tallying the war's dead and wounded rests feet from the local Army recruiting office, and Cameron's refusal to take it down despite Army requests has drawn national attention. The fuss is giving the Vietnam veteran a chance to air a view he wishes he'd expressed long ago.
"The way veterans have been treated in this country is shameful," Cameron said this week.
[snip]
It all started a month ago, when Cameron, a volunteer for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Kelley, posted a sign in the window of the campaign's local office. It reads, "Remember the Fallen Heroes," and contains three tallies: the number of American troops killed in Iraq, the number wounded and the days passed since the war began.
"The sacrifices our troops and their families are making are an important part of Minnesotans' lives right now," said Kelley, one of several Democrats seeking to unseat Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty next year. "If this draws attention to that, it's all to the good as far as I'm concerned."
As of Friday, the sign reported 2,177 troops had been killed and 16,155 injured, after 1,017 days in Iraq. Capan said the sign hasn't hurt recruiting: "We had three people sign up just today," he said earlier this week.
[snip]
Duluth seems an unlikely location for the latest flare-up. The city of brick mansions and steep hills rising off Lake Superior in northeastern Minnesota is a stronghold of blue-collar progressivism mixed with old-fashioned Midwestern patriotism.
Many residents seem uncomfortable with the controversy.
"This really shouldn't be that big a deal," Sam Johnson said. His companion, Lisa Whitestone, said, "I think it's a fair thing to be reminded that there's a cost for us to be over there."
Cameron said he never intended to discourage recruiting efforts -- but he's not particularly concerned if it does.
[snip]
-----
Full story here: http://tinyurl.com/dg68o
all that is necessary is for good men to do something,
Otter
THIS is the question I want asked by the MSM on their stupid little quickvote thingys...
Which freedom do you think American soldiers have fought and died for over the past two centuries?
A. For the freedom of the government to secretly access the personal information and communications of it's citizens as well as monitoring of personal activities.
-or-
B. For the freedoms guaranteed our citizens as contained within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Posted by: marc trager at December 31, 2005 06:47 AM
Incredible, huh?
So, I say based on this infomration we'll have many years of investigating how deep these roots go.
We'll see which Republicans (and maybe Dems too) sold out to foreign agents.
We'll see how their payola scheme worked.
But it will be so messy the dumb-downed, overworked eligible to vote American won't know anything. And the media won't cover it anyway.
Hm....has anyone investigated the media to see if they sent donations to Delay and Abramhoff?
Just a quick reminder that Tip O'Neill was right...
-----
NEW YEAR BRINGS ARRAY OF NEW STATE LAWS
(AP) The new year will dawn with an array of state laws taking effect across the country, offering a snapshot of issues that matter to Americans -- from identity theft and sex offenders to dangers on the road.
Perennial challenges such as taxes and health care crop up among the new measures, as do steps to improve elections and enforce ethical behavior among politicians. Newer issues are being raised, too, including an Illinois law that targets human trafficking.
Legislation approved in 2005 formally becomes law in many states on New Year's Day (though some measures take effect upon a governor's signature, or July 1).
[snip]
-----
To read the full story and find out what's coming soon to a state near you, go here: http://tinyurl.com/dokvb
nous sommes l'etat,
Otter
Read the PR handbook.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/29/2005/main1171279.shtml
Dan Froomkin of the washingtonpost.com is going to be out of the office for a few weeks and left a list of interesting sites and blogs to check in his absence.
Actually there are 2 lists. The first he gave in October 2005...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/05/BL2005100501427_pf.html
The second was on Dec. 29th and it adds a few names to the list given in October.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
You might like comparing his list of sites that he checks with your own.
And here's an OpEd published by the Washington Post that some may find of interest:
I'm a Soldier, Not a Spy
By Grant Doty
Friday, December 30, 2005
As Americans take stock of the news that the government has been involved in domestic warrantless eavesdropping as well as surveillance of "potentially threatening people or organizations inside the United States," many people are troubled, including me.
read the rest here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122900791.html
New Year's Eve food for thought now up--new thread. Contains homework.
Evidently, the right wing is now protesting a new NBC series set to begin in January called "The Book of Daniel."
I hadn't heard of this show until I received an e-mail from a friend who thought I'd want to involve myself in the protest ?????????? Why, I don't know. My belief in censoring TV is that the tuner works really well at my house. But, after looking up the website of the program, it sounds like an interesting show about a very human minister. I might just check it out. Here's the right wing's view of it though, and the beginnings of their efforts to force NBC to do their bidding:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC considers new show featuring a completely dysfunctional family a positive portrayal of Christ and Christians
Dear Wayne,
On January 6, NBC will begin a new series entitled The Book of Daniel.
While the public has not seen the program, NBC is promoting "The Book of Daniel" as a serious drama about Christian people and the Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis.
Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law.
NBC and the mainstream media call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The series is written by Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being "in Catholic recovery," and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. "I don't necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true," he said.
NBC considers The Book of Daniel a positive portrayal of Christ and Christians.
Please take action now! Here is what you can do:
1. Call your local NBC affiliate and ask them not to air the program. You can find their contact information in your local phone book or by Clicking Here.
2. Print out a copy of AFA's pass along sheet, fill in the affiliate call letters and phone number, make copies and pass out at your church. Ask your pastor to announcement it and put information in the bulletin and newsletter. [doc version] [pdf version]
3. If you haven't already done so, send an email to NBC by Clicking Here.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Please help get the word out by forwarding this to your family and friends. They probably aren't aware of it!
Finally, if you believe we are making a difference, would you consider a small financial gift to AFA? There is so much more we could do if funds were available. Click here to help.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
_________________________________________________
Notice- the letter states that the general public hasn't seen this program yet. I'm sure Mr Wlidmon hasn't either. It's another attempt by the right to censor television that they haven't even viewed yet, exactly as they tried to, and accomplished, taking the Reagan bio-pic off the mainstream networks.
Let me see the show first, then I'll let you know if it offends me. And if it does, I'll used my tuner. It's an old fashioned device, but it works perfectly.