It’s hard to believe, but Julia doesn’t agree with Junior and Big Time that Rummy is the bestest darned SecDef the country has ever had:
See, I would have probably gone with George Marshall, who was – when he wasn’t busy planning the Meuse-Argonne offensive which caused Germany to give up in World War One, becoming a Brigadier General, being named the Army Chief of Staff and serving in that capacity for the duration of World War Two (he was credited by Winston Churchill with planning the Allied victory) and serving as Secretary of State and subsequently the president of the International Red Cross – the architect of the Marshall Plan, which is considered by many (clearly delusional) people to be the single US initiative most responsible for keeping Europe out of the hands of the Russians after World War Two and preventing the mistakes that were made after World War One from being repeated and possibly setting off World War Three. “
But, did Campbell Brown call him a Rock Star? Did Midge Dector write a gushy semi-erotic paeon to his manliness? Was he hot, hot, hot?
Ok. I think it may be time to start thinking outside the box. This can’t be just incompetence. Nobody could be this stupid, not even Crusader Codpiece. There must be some underlying reason why they are compelled to do the absolute wrong thing every single time.
Today’s little tribute to Rumsfeld was completely inexplicable by ordinary standards. It’s bad enough that Bush refused to fire the asshole. But, to go out and make a point of saying that the country “owes him a debt of gratitude” is the equivalent of pouring boric acid into an open wound.
Is Cheney reading the Left Behind series aloud at cabinet meetings or something?
Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush’s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.
Critics had called for him to quit after the furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners but analysts, editors and ordinary Arabs were united in their condemnation of Bush who said the United States owed Rumsfeld a “debt of gratitude.”
“After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It’s just incredible. I am in total shock,” said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.
“Bush’s praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States…and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world,” he added.
[…]
“After Mr. Bush’s decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service,” Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. “Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American.”
“The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world…How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners,” added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.
University of Algiers professor Mahmoud Belhimeur agreed.
“I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld,” he said.
[…]
A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rumsfeld would be seen as Washington’s quiet approval of the abuse.
“This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.
“I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world.”
Howard Kurtz, helpfully giving the wing-nuts a little bucking up during these dark days of dog and reality bites, says that the Democrats are panicking about John Kerrys’ campaign. It’s not surprising since Democrats in general seem to have a penchant for jumping the gun this year. Jayzuz. Haven’t we been down this road already?
To all those nervous nellies, I just have four little words: Shut The Fuck Up.
Before it disappears into the ether, I’d like to point out that Wesley Clark’s appearance on Meat The Press yesterday should put to rest any lingering questions about his political loyalties.
Not only was his analysis right on point, as usual, but he was very tough, saying that it would be patriotic for Rumsfeld to resign and that we should unload (war criminal Ambassador) Negroponte, something that I haven’t heard anyone but Harkin even remotely address. He said in no uncertain terms that the responsibility for this debacle goes all the way to the Oval Office.
You can tell he was effective by the blustering he elicited from that mannequin in a suit they call a Senator, John Warner.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m very encouraged that the Congress is taking a very strong look at this. I think there are systemic failures here. But I think it does come, as Senator Levin says, from a broader perception, an announcement within the administration, really, that international law is not that important. It’s legalisms. What counts is American force.
And, you know, those Geneva Conventions were put in place to protect Americans. They were put in place to protect our men and women in case they be taken. And the people who were detained in Iraq, the prisoners there, the detainees, they were all covered under the Geneva Convention–they should have been.
And so there’s more than a systemic failure. There’s a failure of leadership that goes right to the top. This is a presidential leadership problem. He is the commander in chief. He announces it virtually every day on the campaign trail and he, himself, must take responsibility for this because it reflects his command influence.
SEN. WARNER: Tim, could I just interrupt? We’ve got to be cautious because I’m convinced that the Department of Defense is doing everything they can to get the facts out in the public. I was assured yesterday that all the new photos are being reviewed by the lawyers and so forth and will be forthcoming to the Congress…[blah, blah, blah]
[…]
MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Rumsfeld has written throughout his career “Rumsfeld’s Rules” and this is one of them: “Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance.”
General Clark, do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should resign?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think there’s really two issues on this. One is his effectiveness and he said he would resign if he felt he couldn’t be effective. But I think it’s really a question of the credibility of the U.S. mission and how the United States is perceived in the world. I don’t think his effectiveness has been compromised. I think he can still give orders; I think people will still take them. There’s no issue with that. The real question is: “How is the United States perceived and how seriously are we perceived to be taking this issue?”
I think it would be very patriotic if Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. But I do think that the issue goes beyond the secretary of defense. I don’t think we should indict the men and women in the armed forces. I think 99.9 percent of them are doing a great job over there and I hope the American people will support them. I certainly do. But I do think that when something like this happens that the prima facia notion of this is this goes right to the top. What did the president know? What was the atmosphere that the president created? How hard was he pushing?
We know there was a lot of pressure to get intelligence information from these interrogations. And the Pentagon was the action agency on this working with the Central Intelligence Agency in crafting the rules. But the atmosphere in which the Geneva Conventions were more or less set to one side, apparently, would have come from the top.
[…]
MR. RUSSERT: Let me just turn to the real issue here and that is who is responsible, who’s being blamed, who’s being court-martialed
GEN. CLARK: Well, there is a systemic problem here, and we do need to get to the bottom of it. We do need intelligence information. Our soldiers have to maintain standards of conduct. And General Taguba’s report, I think, got to many of the key issues that are involved; more needs to be done.
But beyond the specific issue that’s here involved and who was responsible and how do we prevent this in the future is the larger issue of the success or failure of the mission in Iraq. And that’s what this prisoner abuse calls into question.
We know there was no linkage between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. We know now there was no imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, the last claim of the administration is to do good in Iraq by providing democracy, an opportunity for democracy and higher standards. And here we are with this compromising the higher standards that we believe in. So it’s a very, very significant issue as we try to win the hearts and the minds of the people in Iraq and promote our views of the right way to govern around the world.
[…]
MR. RUSSERT: … Murtha…expressed serious doubts that those remedies are even faint possibilities, given current military deployments, a lack of support from NATO allies and widespread outrage over the mistreatment of Iraqis prisoners of war.”
“Coming from a senior appropriator with close ties to the Pentagon, Murtha’s bleak analysis led many colleagues to surmise that he believes a democratic Iraqi is a lost cause.”
General Clark, do you share that pessimism?
GEN. CLARK: I think there’s a greater than 50/50 chance, let’s say a 2:1 chance, of a catastrophic early end to this mission.
MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean?
GEN. CLARK: That means the Iraqi people will simply say, “We want the Americans out of here.” You’ll see a large outpouring of public animosity in Baghdad and elsewhere, a million Iraqis demonstrating in the streets of Baghdad against us. And, Tim, we’re only going to be there and be effective if the majority of the Iraqi people want us there. That’s what this mission’s success hinges on.
All of the issues, international involvement, more troops and all that–all of it is measured by: Do the Iraqi people believe that we’re actually helping and contributing to their betterment or are we causing problems?
And the Iraqi people are, step by step, turning against this mission. What we need to do right now is a major change in policy. We need to unload John Negroponte after the 30th of June. He cannot run that country as the American ambassador.
We’ve got to have an international assistance organization like we did in the Balkans, where other nations can participate, and the Iraqis will understand that it’s the world trying to help them; it’s not America telling them what to do.
Update: For anyone who’s interested in going deeper into Wes Clark’s ideas about how to fix this cock-up in Iraq, read “Broken Engagement” in the May issue of The Washington Monthly.
The alabaster sculpture of a crouching naked man, with his hands tied and his head covered by a hood is on display at a Baghdad gallery.
It bears a striking resemblance to some of the shocking photographs that emerged last week of Iraqi prisoners abused by their American guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.
The 38cm sculpture with the words “We are living American democracy” inscribed on its base was fashioned two months ago.
‘We knew what went on at Abu Ghraib,’ the artist Abdul-Kareem Khalil said on Saturday. “The pictures did not surprise me.”
The invasion of Iraq is not only the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory, it is also the most expensive strategic blunder in modern times.
With troop commitments growing, the cost of the war in Iraq could top $150 billion through the next fiscal year — as much as three times what the White House had originally estimated. And, according to congressional researchers and outside budget experts, the war and continuing occupation could total $300 billion over the next decade, making this one of the costliest military campaigns in modern times.
As a measure of the Bush administration’s priorities in the war on terrorism, it has spent about $3 in Iraq for every $1 committed to homeland security, experts say.
That divide may be growing.
The Pentagon says its monthly costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom shot up from $2.7 billion in November to nearly $7 billion in January, the last month for which ithas provided figures. Since then, the number of troops has jumped by 20,000 to 135,000, and the bloody insurgency has grown.
Defense officials initially said the troop increases were temporary, but last week they changed course and said they planned to maintain the higher levels through 2005, along with increased numbers of tanks and other heavy military equipment. The tempo of military operations has increased sharply in response to a wave of lethal attacks, suggesting the costs still may be climbing.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have started to express deep concern over the costs and the way in which the Bush administration is choosing to cover them.
They contend that the White House has been relying on budgeting stratagems to conceal the overall expense, at least until after the election in November. And lawmakers worry that Congress is going to be forced to do something the White House has said until now was not necessary: Chop away at other government programs to cover the costs of an occupation that has no end in sight.
“DOD (Department of Defense) is being more than customarily opaque with us, ” Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview. “We’re trying to pool our efforts and share information and piece something together, which is the only way to figure out what it is really going to cost us. But this is basic information. This is not unorthodox to get these numbers. It’s not asking for somebody to rework the whole books. I think they are embarrassed by the level of the costs.”
By contrast, Operation Desert Storm, begun in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s armies invaded Kuwait, cost about $84 billion, adjusted for inflation, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. But because the United States was part of a broad coalition of wealthy countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia, about 90 percent of those costs were paid for by America’s allies.
But you know, Junior, in his ongoing quest to prove to his father that he is a man, decided that it was a good idea to tell the rest of the world to go fuck itself and pay for the entire mistake ourselves. Besides, Chalabi and Wolfowitz promised that the war would pay for itself and that made so much sense.
All right, so we’re at war with these people. And they’re in a prison where they’re being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it’s pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation — and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world. And we’re sitting here, ‘Oh my God, they’re gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?’ I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they’re gonna think we are serious. Maybe they’re gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they’re gonna think we’re not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver.
[…]
Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us — in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.
We are at war with Iraq. And the Iraqis are trying to kill us. We are simply teaching them who’s in charge …
…when we aren’t liberating them and creating a liberal democracy that will be a model for all the tyrannical regimes in the region, that is.
Rush is not off the reservation. He knows what he’s supposed to say to keep his dittoheads in line. I have little doubt that Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove, (despite their horror toward Democratic “hate speech”) are on the same page. They always are.
Update: Media Matters is keeping the heat on Rush and he doesn’t like it.
Sadoun Dulame read the results of his latest poll again and again. He added up percentages, highlighted sections and scribbled notes in the margins.
No matter how he crunched the numbers, however, he found himself in the uncomfortable position this week of having to tell occupation authorities that the report they commissioned paints the bleakest picture yet of the U.S.-led coalition’s reputation in Iraq. For the first time, according to Dulame’s poll, a majority of Iraqis said they’d feel safer if the U.S. military withdrew immediately.
A year ago, just 17 percent of Iraqis wanted the troops gone, according to Dulame’s respected research center in Baghdad. Now, the disturbing new results mirror what most Iraqis and many international observers have said for months: Give it up. Go home. This just isn’t working.
The prisoner-abuse scandal is only the latest in a string of serious setbacks to the U.S. administration’s ambitions for democracy in Iraq. Before that, one essential political ally was lost – the country’s Shiite Muslim majority – and another discredited – Ahmed Chalabi and other members of the U.S.-appointed governing council.
A persistent guerrilla campaign is sending dozens of U.S. troops home in flag-draped coffins, and more than half the country is unemployed. Rebuilding projects the coalition started and then abandoned because the worsening security drove away contractors only add to the country’s dismal landscape and dim hopes for the future.
[…]
Outside of officialdom, there is little appetite for allowing Americans to stay. Anyone still talking about liberation is shushed as disingenuous, especially now that the image of a Saddam Hussein statue crashing to the ground is no longer symbolic of the coalition’s intentions. Instead, many Iraqis said, today’s American presence is best summed up in photos of a laughing female American soldier leading a nude Iraqi prisoner by a dog leash.
Dulame’s grim poll doesn’t even take in the prisoner scandal’s effects. It was conducted in mid-April in seven Iraqi cities. A total of 1,600 people were interviewed, and the margin of error is 3 percentage points. The findings, which must go first to coalition authorities, have not yet been made public.
According to Dulame, director of the independent Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, prisoner abuse and other coalition missteps now are fueling a dangerous blend of Islamism and tribalism. For example, while American officials insist that only fringe elements support the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a majority of Iraqis crossed ethnic and sectarian lines to name him the second most-respected man in Iraq, according to the coalition-funded poll.
The POW photos are having an unintended effect on the Arab “Street” and the “resistance.”
Amidst all the apologies, I want to suggest we all (Hillary Clinton here) take a deep breath and consider something that no one in the administration or Congress has (publicly) considered:
By now, everyone pretty well knows that Arab societies base everything on power and perceptions of power. In part, that is why so many Freepers and conservatives got their panties in a bunch because it appeared in public like “apologizing” was a sign of weakness.
Ah, my friends. You aren’t thinking like an Arab. The “street” and, indeed, the leadership doesn’t trust much of what we say—they only look at what we do. It would have made no difference if Bush formally apologized and sent each detainee a bouquet of flowers—the “street” would see that as a sham, a pretense, a distraction from the “real” policy.
No, I suggest something else. That the Arab “street” and especially the “resistance” has taken from those photos a message we didn’t intend to send, but one that strikes fear into the very heart of them—a message of pure power and dominance. The submissive positions of these “tough” Iraqi men under the heels and attached to the leashes of WOMEN (and relatively small women, at that) sends a very powerful message to the “street.”
Don’t screw with the Americans. Oh, they’ll “apologize,” be we know that when the hearings are over, and the attention is off, they can do what they want.
I want to reiterate: this is foreign to our way of thinking. Unless you’re a hard-core Democrat, you don’t pathologically lie to achieve your objectives. But we must start thinking like the enemy.
Has anyone noticed that we virtually walked into Najaf this week, unopposed? Al-Sadr did nothing. Has anyone noticed that Fallujah is quiet? Very few roadside bombs/suicide bombs in the last couple of days. This could all change, but it is eerie that when a message of power is sent out all over the Middle East—unintentionally on our part—it resonates. Big time.
Yes, yes. Americans have the most humongous, elephantine dicks on the planet. Everybody knows that. Especially freepers. They also have the smallest brains.
In one sense, this person is right. The “Arab street” doesn’t believe these half-hearted apologies for one minute. Rummy’s still running things, Bush can’t spit out the word “sorry” without choking and the plan continues unabated. Whether they are all shaking and weeping like little girls under the shadow of our mighty manhood is another story. I guess this “analyst” forgot that these guys lived under Saddam, who up until about five minutes ago was universally condemned for doing exactly what this fellow now praises the US for doing.
After having to endure the hate-filled rhetoric of Democrats, David “National Greatness” Brooks must be so proud to be politically aligned with fine examples of civil discourse like Rush Limbaugh and these real Americans:
It’s like judo. You turn your weaknesses into strength. The scandal is a weakness, and we turn it into a strength. Right now, every would-be terrorist is going to have horrible nightmares of sexual torture before they light off their next bomb.
Sadly, American troops are now having the same nightmares. Which is why they aren’t too happy right now. Their jobs just got exponentially more dangerous.
Excellent point. Also note this: the prisoners chose to submit to this humiliation. They could have defied us and chosen their 72 virgins. How strong is their faith? I believe that the Japanese were much more devoted to their faith than the Islamics. God willing, I do not expect to see as many suicide bombers as there were kamakazis back during WWII. Right or wrong, some of the guards called their bluff, and we can learn from that.
It was the prisoners choice to live or die and they chose to live. So it’s their fault they were sexually tortured and humiliated. Buncha babies.
You know? You may be on to something. We know we’re dealing with cowards. Perhaps alSadr crapped his kaftan when he saw those photos and pictured himself naked… barking like a dog with a chain on his neck… at the end of a leash held by a 90 pound woman sucking on a Pall Mall.
[…]
Can you imagine us apologizing and offering cash reparations to jailed lower-level Nazi crimminals during WW2 for “humiliating” them? The American people would’ve been horrified by such a suggestion. …..but back then we were made of much sterner stuff.
That’s so true. As our National Security Advisor said, “we liberated the German people from Hitler” just as we are liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam. It’s just a matter of sorting out who’s naughty and nice. Luckily, American troops can automatically tell the good Iraqis we are liberating from the bad Iraqis we are fighting. The prisoners who were being beaten raped and tortured must be guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there, right?
The only [thing] that would have made those pictures even worse,to the “Arab Street”,would have been if these pictures also showed women rubbing bacon all over those “brave” soldiers for Allah.
Good idea. But, really, why are we playing these silly games. Concentration camps are one proven method to deal with these sub-humans.
On the other hand:
I don’t know if this sexual harassment will do the job. Personally I would like us to locate this piss-ant called Al-Sadr and the mosque he is located in. Once located we drop a MOAB (Muslims & Other Arab Bastards) bomb. I figure a few of these, probably less than 10-20 would shut the Arab-Muslim’s up.
They don’t say Americans are the pargmatists of the world for nothing.
Yeah, you nailed it. This stuff is so lame compared to other wars. I actually thought the pictures were a bit comical. As the poster states, the pictures may have made a very large point to a culture which treats it’s women like crap. And guess what? NO ONE GOT HURT! Seeing a human being jump from a burning sky scraper; now that’s NOT funny. And guess what? That person died and not one Arab or Muslim leader was asked to apologize, nor did any apologize. In fact, those societies cheered at what happened on 911. I say screw ’em, and I say screw the libs who are demanding this non-stop apology.
Until we get an apology from all the Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11, we can do whatever we want (and to all those woman hating liberals who support them, too.)
Here’s another feminist for Bush:
If I were a Muslim woman and saw that tiny woman pretending she had an AK-14 pointed at their hubby’s cajoles, I be saying let me get you a real handheld rocket propeller with an extra round and send him to his 72 Virgins. I’ll help pull the trigger!
Muslim women (if they have seen any of these pics) must be grateful that finally the “men” are being abused and not the females in Iraqi.
I don’t condone what was done and evidently there is more to come (no pun intended). Geez, these guys were in “prison” and another thought is that maybe a lot of Iraqi’s recognized some of their former torturers and were pleased that Allah had sent such “tormentors” to revenge these evil doers.
One last thing! A pair of Hane’s women’s panties???? Get real, most of the guys in SanFran would have gone for the Victoria Secret thong with matching lace bra.
I hope we get this crap behind us and win the war on terror and have a turnover on June 30th that makes every sacrifice our Country and our Military worthwhile.
The DEMS are fiddling while Rome is burning. Clinton’s “I didn’t have sex with the woman is more abusive to me as an American than any of the pics I’ve seen so far!
Well, there you have it.
I think the way to fight off evil is to do some acts of goodness. See, the great strength of the country is the hearts and souls of our fellow Americans. And the best way to declare our position, the best way to make our position known to the world, is through what I like to call the gathering momentum of millions of acts of kindness and compassion and decency; acts of compassion and decency which take place on a daily basis, in all kinds of ways. George W. Bush
Or we could pour buckets of pig blood all over the naked prisoners.
The “tough” thing is, their opposition sounds suspiciously like it might end up as some form of pluralistic democracy:
What is becoming increasingly accepted as the inherent inability of the US-led coalition to come to grips with the situation – further exacerbated by the range of opposition forces ranged against it – has left a political vacuum, a vacuum that this initiative hopes to help fill.
The senior Shia cleric behind the initiative, Sheikh Jawad al-Khalisi, brought together some 500 prominent Iraqis – Shia, Sunni, Arab nationalist and Kurdish.
They hope to carve out a path, free from American and other foreign influences, along which the majority of Iraqis could be persuaded to move.
The conference set up a 16-member panel, pledged to boycott any US-sponsored political group, including the Iraqi Governing Council, to re-establish the national army and to restore sovereignty under the auspices of the United Nations.
Sheikh Khalisi’s opposition to the US programme seems bound to cause hostility in some quarters.
But the idea of a broad and wholly Iraqi initiative may also win hearts and minds among the local population.
