[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Can Someone Explain to Me why everyone is pissed off specifically at Rumsfeld for the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners? I've missed something.

1) He knew about torture and sexual abuse almost 5 months ago - if not longer - and did nothing. Did not even bother to look at the pictures on those many CDs until the night before called back to testify before Congress.
2) He testified in closed session to Congress only hours before CBS would release the story. He knew the story was going to be released, was in a perfect scenario to notify Congress, and he said nothing. He left even Congress blindsided by a story and facts that were known for months.
3) from The Economist:

He is also, however, the man most identified with the wider culture to which these abuses may be connected.
The approach was epitomised by the setting up of a prision camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in 2001. The decision to detain combatants caught in Afghanistan for an indefinitie period, with no access to lawyers and no legal redress, was understandable as a short-term response to the threat of terrorism and to ignorance about who might actually be terrorists, but it was nevertheless both wrong and disastrous for America's reputation. It was wrong because it violated the very values and rule of law for which America was supposedly fighting, and soon produced evidence of double standards: some American citizens captured in Afghanistan were allowed to stand trial in American courts in the normal way, but such rights were denied to mere foreigners, every single one of whom was labelled as a dangerous terrorist by Mr Rumsfeld, regardless of any evidence. It has been disastrous for America's reputation because of that hypocrisy but also because it has become a symbol of a "we'll decide" arrogance.

Those are only the immediately obvious reasons for Rumsfeld to resign. There is no one killer reason. Just a very long list of mistakes, outright deceptions, and lies going back to the original reasons for a Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq. So many in Congress now feel deceived. Some examples:
1) Rumsfeld said only 30,000 troops would be needed after major hostilities ended even though Chairman of the Joint Cheifs was saying 200,000+ for at least two years. The Chairman basically lost his job for telling a truth that Rumsfeld did not want told. Currently Rumsfeld is only talking force protection rather than a solution to Iraq because of a shortage of troops in country. Force protection is a buzz word meaning we will be there far longer than originally anticipated (duhhhhh).
2) Rumsfeld keeps saying if they need more troops, then they should just say so. But commanders have been repeatedly saying they have been deprived of sufficient resources through the only channel available - retired Generals. Most materials that are missing is because Rumsfeld's DoD had no idea that we would be an occupation army of people who did not want to be liberated. They actually thought we would win the war and just go home.
3) When they got to Baghdad, troops had no orders, no instructions, and no next objective. Same as the mistake made after liberation of Kuwait. 3rd Infantry after action reports make this obvious. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al had no idea what to do and assumed Iraq would solve itself. A wound left open and untreated has now festered.
4) He completely denied there was any looting when literally the entire country was being looted.
5) Rumsfeld and DoD are suppose to be running the reconstructiion of Iraq. It is moving at an almost zero pace. Example: Whereas Saddam could restore the electricity in a month, the DoD under Rumsfeld could not get the system fully working after 6 months. Even then, Saddam's Iraq had still produced more electricity.
6) Far more money is disappearing into Iraq then Rumsfeld will admit. Example: When short troops, then the Pentagon has hired over 20,000 contractor troops at more than $100,000 per man per year to do in Iraq what regular troops are suppose to perform. Massive money is being spent and still Congress remains uninformed how large the bill really is.
7) The entire Iraq torture and abuse occurred when top commanders (probably including Rumsfeld) decided to run Iraqi prisons more like Guantanamo prisons. That is when the torture and abuse began and was condoned, obviously, at very high levels of command.
8) It could be as high as 80% of he prisoners in Guantanamo are innocent. Rumors of this suggest why the intelligence gathering system was expanded to Iraq - because insufficient information was being obtained from Guantanamo. Some theory that Iraqi prisons also must be full of Al Qaeda information - if only we break them down.
9) from CNN and notice how many months ago this was reported:

Meanwhile, a report completed in February by the International Committee of the Red Cross and leaked to media outlets Monday claimed that up to 90 percent of Iraqis held by U.S. and allied troops have been arrested by mistake.

10) Many in Congress don't like enlisted men being made scape goats for only doing what Rumsfeld and others ordered. Did Rumsfeld specifically called for torture and sexual abuse. No. But that is what should and would happen without rule of law and when Guantanamo standard procedures were implemented in Iraq.
11) Warned repeatedly that this was happening, instead Rumsfeld could not even be bothered to read reports or view the pictures. He so little respected Geneva Convention standards as to all but say this sort of thing should be expected. Just more attitude that has so dismayed even his supporters.

Few of so many little things that are directly traceable to Rumsfeld. Even two of his strongest supporters - The Ecomomist and the Army Times - have bluntly called for his resignation. Its no longer retired generals that note the bad situation we are in. Now active generals such as commander of the 82nd Airborne are now publically questioning leadership decisions. Rumsfeld's leadership has become that questionable that even active generals are publically asking questions.

We are now in a quagmire with no exit strategy and no apparent solution. And yet Rumsfeld talks as it everything is going according to plan. What plan? That too has finally dawned on Congress. We have no plan other than the force democracy upon people who neither wanted it nor (in most cases) know what democracy is.

There are certain principles fundamental to America. That includes not going to war without a smoking gun, no outright lying to Congress as only an Oliver North might, no torture as is standard practice in Guantanamo Bay, no lies to Congress and the public to justify war, and telling Congress in advance what the real costs will be. Rumsfeld has, to one degree or another, violated every listed principle.

Are those enough reasons or do you want more?