Well, there is a lot of talking but I think the last line of the Newsweek article says it best--we need to get to the bottom of this. In other words, no one babbling about this really knows what is what yet including all these people. Sy Hersh is a very unreliable source of information, and he seems to be the one that everyone else is relying on.
I go back and forth between thinking that if someone were going to kill my family and they said they could stop it by making someone stand naked in a hood, stay up all night and get scared shitless by barking dogs they thought would attack them, etc, I would say no problem do it, or fearing that this all was sort of a sadistic game going on that really got out of hand. All in all, the coverage and the implications have gone way too far to me. No one was hurt, and if Arabs are crying foul because they hate women so much that to make a man act like one is the ultimate disgrace then maybe they are the ones with a problem.
Sy Hersh is a very unreliable source of information
He has a far better track record than the current administration, though, and far less reason to lie.
if someone were going to kill my family and they said they could stop it by making someone stand naked in a hood
Go, Michael, go! Kick the shit out of that strawman! I think it's safe to say that nobody in Abu Ghraib prison had any designs on your family. ICRC estimates that 70-90% of the inmates were innocent and just caught up in sweeps.
No one was hurt
Tell it to this guy. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead. You may want to go back and actually read General Taguba's report.
No one was hurt in the photos we have seen and the abuse as described. My point is that if Rumsfeld somehow is responsible for this over the top interrogation it was directed at those who would kill Americans and was not something that would physically harm them. All we know so far is that the murder, rape, etc was done by some sadistic individuals outside of orders.
There is such a huge amount of abusive vitriol being directed at Bush on a daily basis by those who want to bring him down, how can one sort out the truth in all this? Hersh is known for at least stretching the facts, I have not had any problems with Bush's credibility, in fact he is one of the most credible politicians I have seen in my life time. The Bush haters are the ones who lack credibility to me.
No one was hurt in the photos we have seen and the abuse as described
I'd recommend again that you actually read General Taguba's report, because what you are saying flatly contradicts the Army's own version of events. There was indeed overt physical abuse and at least two prisoners were beaten to death. The fellow cowering before the dogs turns up in a later photo with blood streaming down his leg from a dog bite. Really, claiming nobody was hurt, when even the soldiers charged admit it, is a terribly odd position to take.
[GWB] is one of the most credible politicians I have seen in my life time
Well, my friend, if that's your starting point, then I don't think there's much reason for us to continue this debate.
my point is that no one was physically injured under orders from a superior officer and particularly Rumsfeld as far as we know. I am probably not writing too clearly. Yes, there are criminal acts in the military and there were criminal acts and even murder at Abu Ghraib by Americans. About that I am deeply concerned.
As far as Bush's credibility, for the last year or more he has been subjected to such biased and really abusive attacks by those who want to do him in, that I fear that the actual meaning and perception of what really went on has been altered in people's minds. For instance, his speech in the flight jacket on the ship with the sign "Mission Accomplished" behind him. I saw that live that day and was clear that the sign referred to the mission of the soldiers on that ship. I knew the war wasn't over, but after that the media and the left picked at it and picked at it trying to turn it into something it was not. That has happened on almost a daily basis to Bush since he went to war, and it has become a horrible feeding frenzy where reality has become so distorted that I don't know if we will ever get to the truth about a lot of things. The media and the left seem more interested in manufacturing and sensationalizing anything they can find wrong with Bush and the war than finding the truth to me.
I read Iraqi blogs and for the most part they don't care that much about how these prisoners were treated, because most of the ones that got this treatment were murderers and terrorists themselves, among other reasons. I just think this whole thing has already lost all sense of balance in service of being the outrage of the week.
Well, there is a lot of talking but I think the last line of the Newsweek article says it best--we need to get to the bottom of this. In other words, no one babbling about this really knows what is what yet including all these people. Sy Hersh is a very unreliable source of information, and he seems to be the one that everyone else is relying on.
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/miller200405171342.asp
I go back and forth between thinking that if someone were going to kill my family and they said they could stop it by making someone stand naked in a hood, stay up all night and get scared shitless by barking dogs they thought would attack them, etc, I would say no problem do it, or fearing that this all was sort of a sadistic game going on that really got out of hand. All in all, the coverage and the implications have gone way too far to me. No one was hurt, and if Arabs are crying foul because they hate women so much that to make a man act like one is the ultimate disgrace then maybe they are the ones with a problem.
Posted by Michael H. | Link to this comment | 05-18-04 2:42 AM
Sy Hersh is a very unreliable source of information
He has a far better track record than the current administration, though, and far less reason to lie.
if someone were going to kill my family and they said they could stop it by making someone stand naked in a hood
Go, Michael, go! Kick the shit out of that strawman! I think it's safe to say that nobody in Abu Ghraib prison had any designs on your family. ICRC estimates that 70-90% of the inmates were innocent and just caught up in sweeps.
No one was hurt
Tell it to this guy. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead. You may want to go back and actually read General Taguba's report.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-18-04 8:40 AM
No one was hurt in the photos we have seen and the abuse as described. My point is that if Rumsfeld somehow is responsible for this over the top interrogation it was directed at those who would kill Americans and was not something that would physically harm them. All we know so far is that the murder, rape, etc was done by some sadistic individuals outside of orders.
There is such a huge amount of abusive vitriol being directed at Bush on a daily basis by those who want to bring him down, how can one sort out the truth in all this? Hersh is known for at least stretching the facts, I have not had any problems with Bush's credibility, in fact he is one of the most credible politicians I have seen in my life time. The Bush haters are the ones who lack credibility to me.
Posted by Michael H. | Link to this comment | 05-18-04 11:19 AM
No one was hurt in the photos we have seen and the abuse as described
I'd recommend again that you actually read General Taguba's report, because what you are saying flatly contradicts the Army's own version of events. There was indeed overt physical abuse and at least two prisoners were beaten to death. The fellow cowering before the dogs turns up in a later photo with blood streaming down his leg from a dog bite. Really, claiming nobody was hurt, when even the soldiers charged admit it, is a terribly odd position to take.
[GWB] is one of the most credible politicians I have seen in my life time
Well, my friend, if that's your starting point, then I don't think there's much reason for us to continue this debate.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-18-04 11:30 AM
my point is that no one was physically injured under orders from a superior officer and particularly Rumsfeld as far as we know. I am probably not writing too clearly. Yes, there are criminal acts in the military and there were criminal acts and even murder at Abu Ghraib by Americans. About that I am deeply concerned.
As far as Bush's credibility, for the last year or more he has been subjected to such biased and really abusive attacks by those who want to do him in, that I fear that the actual meaning and perception of what really went on has been altered in people's minds. For instance, his speech in the flight jacket on the ship with the sign "Mission Accomplished" behind him. I saw that live that day and was clear that the sign referred to the mission of the soldiers on that ship. I knew the war wasn't over, but after that the media and the left picked at it and picked at it trying to turn it into something it was not. That has happened on almost a daily basis to Bush since he went to war, and it has become a horrible feeding frenzy where reality has become so distorted that I don't know if we will ever get to the truth about a lot of things. The media and the left seem more interested in manufacturing and sensationalizing anything they can find wrong with Bush and the war than finding the truth to me.
I read Iraqi blogs and for the most part they don't care that much about how these prisoners were treated, because most of the ones that got this treatment were murderers and terrorists themselves, among other reasons. I just think this whole thing has already lost all sense of balance in service of being the outrage of the week.
Posted by Michael H. | Link to this comment | 05-18-04 11:56 AM