I have two simple questions on this topic.
First off, has anyone stopped to consider how the Iraqi abuse photos made their way to be on “60 Minutes II,” much less confirming if they weren’t doctor’d (like some of the UK proof originally was) before running around and pointing fingers? Just curious to see if anyone else smells a partisan stench on this particular scandal. And while it excuses nothing, I do wonder who would benefit from such a scandal. It’s certainly not Bush and his staff, the current situation with the UN, the US/World relations, the people of Iraq, the situation in the Middle-East, and definitely not our soldiers, who should be the prime concern here.
Second question: if six soldiers commit a crime, how does that translate into calling for the Secretary of Defense’s resignation? Does that mean that if six children bully a bunch of smaller kids on a playground that you’d fire a teacher? The principal? The Board of Education’s top level administrator? If six co-workers were caught xeroxing their naked colleagues late one night, would you fire the department head? The CEO? Honestly are people so stupid that they think that Rumsfeld was personally touring Iraq and ordering soldiers to abuse Prisoners of War? Are there generals to blame? Possibly. Odds are, if orders were giving to commit these crimes, it was at an even lower level than general.
Are people so willing to believe this, just because they read it in a newspaper, where it was simply one person’s opinion to fire Rumsfeld? Ah, yes, if a newspaper took the time to print it, it must be true. Like the media doesn’t have enough political power in this country… nice. And while there might be other reasons to fire Rumsfeld, I just can’t seem to connect the dots from the prisoner abuse back to demanding his resignation.
Fix the problem and whoever was to blame should get fixed in the process but for fuck’s sake: stop trying to fix the blame!
Actually, I just got an answer to #2: The International Red Cross, who has been feeding reports into the USAF, as far back as February. Which means that there might have been a cover-up planned and/or that Rumsfeld knew more than was reported.
So props to the latest reports and remind me to flame the first three reports that just kept calling for a resignation without saying WHY.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3699665.stm
http://www.usmm.net/revdead.html
Just wondering if this Soldier, Spc. Robert Loria (Soldier who lost arm and Army wanted reimbursement at Ft Hood) was in one of those poorly armored Humvees and if his wounds couldn’t have been avoided or lessened in the first place.
After hearing Rumsfeld’s asinine remarks I am made to wonder if he is or ever was qualified for the job. You can bet one of his kids wouldn’t be riding around over there in a vehicle without armor.
Please read news article> http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2004/12/10/abandon1.htm
OF LIFE AND LIMB
They take the oath to Serve us all
To protect this Land of the Free
Some signed for just the weekends
And a few weeks of the Military.
But when our Country went to “war”
Both Reserve and Regulars “shipped out”
And we at Home and Government
Should make sure they don’t go without.
They should have the best equipment
Especially all those in harm’s way
Their families should be taken care of
And they should get some decent pay.
When our Troops asked for basic armor
And we all know the “wheels” turn slow
But those lame excuses have cost lives
And many more wounded, don’t “they” know?
Of those billions we are spending
How much goes to Halliburton
Instead of where it’s really needed
To help keep those Soldiers from hurtin’.
And when they do get wounded
(Luckier than those who are killed)
They should expect and receive the best
And have all the promises fulfilled.
But the military/civilian bureaucrats
In the Department of Defense
Don’t care about the lowly Soldier
At the “bottom line” of the expense.
When Troops are no longer useful
“They” want to hurry, close the “deal”
You don’t see “them” extend their “tour”
To Soldiers laid up somewhere to heal.
Expendable expenditures
And just a cost of every “war”
So, sign ‘em up and ship ‘em out
Then go out and sign up more.
We can’t expect our Fighting Men
To stand up to Wartime’s test
Unless we send them off to war
With all the very, very, best.
Some wars have been to protect us
And some were fought for Liberty
But we can’t force onto others
What Freedom means to you and me.
But, if the powers that lead us
Keep thinking it is worth the cost
They should “realize” the price
Of all, those families have lost.
Del “Abe” Jones
12-13-2004
More about Halliburton than they probably want you to know> http://www.harpers.org/Halliburton.html#20040113-652119958634
While I’ve got no issue with your comment (I only delete spam messages) I do need to point out that this article is from May 2004 and about quite a different situation, than that of soldiers refusing a mission due to a lack of equipment (on the that topic, I’m of two minds and I don’t know enough about the situation to have commented on it in a regular post – soldiers are supposed to follow orders but they also have the responsibility to refuse an unlawful or immoral order… “danger risk of equipment” is very much in the middle of that, so I can see both sides (especially from a non-emotional stance)).
And I still stand by the “if six soldiers commit a crime, how does that translate into calling for the Secretary of Defense’s resignation?” question. Even if the Secretary is a waste of oxygen, there’s no jump in logic big enough to connect the two things… if he should be fired – as many people think – then it needs to be for something he’s responsible for. Like keep the motor pool stocked with armor, if he was in fact to blame for that decision (and even if he wasn’t, he seems to be hanging himself for it, just the same, so it’ll do). I just believe that if you’re going to fire someone, it should be for the right reason.