Coming Into Focus: Rumsfeld OK'd Prisoner Program - AP, NewYorker

[plornive]

hangfire,

Your responses are hilarious.

1. Rumsfeld failed to maintain a veil of morality in a system where people are punished for not maintaining a veil of morality. This is problematic. Nice dodge.

2. I find your patronization comic. You are a cynic, but I trump you in cynicism. No one was trying to protect Americans. Just admit it.

Going to Iraq was not meant to protect Americans and now that the veil of supposed morality has been removed from the already clearly immoral act, the leaders involved should suffer.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, morality is a white lie to prevent the beast inside of us from tearing us apart. Willingly shedding our morals is irresponsible.

 

[buddy28]

No, the actions of the few U.S. soldiers that abused Iraqi prisoners is not OK. That type of abuse is not U.S. policy.

How can you be sure the actions of a 'few bad apples' were solely motivated by perverted self-gratification, as you suggest, when General Tagubas investigation concluded the MP's in question acted at the behest of Military INtelligence and CIA officers?

"The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses,” the New Yorker reports in its May 10 issue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615133.shtml

That again? You mean the same information Great Britain and Spain assessed and found credible? It was not from anonymous sources--it was from collective military intelligence.

What crediable British intelligence are you refferring to?

You mean the ‘credible’ British intelligence Iraq had sought uranium from Niger that Bush used in his State of the Union Address, only to have the White House later concede was based on forged documents?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/24/iraq/main569829.shtml


Or are you reffering to the 'irrefutable' WMD mobile labs evidence that provided the cornerstone in Powells stirring UN presentation, that he now admits was bogus?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....X5P1ZCCRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5156653


If you have credibility concerns with the New Yorker article quoting several unnamed CIA officials whose story has not been refuted, then why don’t you also harbor the same credibility concerns for the CIA as a whole whose Iraqi-WMD claims have been repeatedly demonstrated as false, and in some cases, ‘intentionally misleading’?

The so-called heinous acts were the work of a few--not the policy of the defense department.

Says who? Donald Rumsfeld?? LOL!

At the end of the day, you have simply no way of disproving the DoD actively colluded to abuse those detainees as New Yorker article suggests.

Substituting a statement for an opinion, doesn't make your case any stronger.

If you take a look, the article cites MULTIPLE sources that corroborate e a very detailed account of inner Pentagon workings.

If the author was bullshitting, someone in the know would have refuted his fantastic lies by now, point-by-point. Why hasn't this happened?

Regardless of public rhetoric, the Arab countries dislike the U.S. because of our support for Israel. That has always been the case and this prisoner-abuse case isn't going to create hatred where it did not already exist.

It's called *degrees* of intensity.

Or are you just arguing degrees of intensity don't exist because that would hurt the Republican platform that obviously dominates your mindset?

 

[Hangfire]

How can you be sure the actions of a 'few bad apples' were solely motivated by perverted self-gratification, as you suggest, when General Tagubas investigation concluded the MP's in question acted at the behest of Military INtelligence and CIA officers?

"The internal report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and CIA agents to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses,” the New Yorker reports in its May 10 issue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615133.shtml

What crediable British intelligence are you refferring to?

You mean the ‘credible’ British intelligence Iraq had sought uranium ............................................................................................................................................If the author was bullshitting, someone in the know would have refuted his fantastic lies by now, point-by-point. Why hasn't this happened?

It's called *degrees* of intensity.

Or are you just arguing degrees of intensity don't exist because that would hurt the Republican platform that obviously dominates your mindset?

It is pointless to debate this issue with you when you are bound and determined to believe the worst and, obviously, hope for the worst. Ignore the harsh realities if you like. The New Yorker article is just another clumsy attempt by the Left at political assassination.

 

[buddy28]

It is pointless to debate this issue with you

Now that you're losing.

when you are bound and determined to believe the worst and, obviously, hope for the worst.

Where’s the hope? I've argued my points with substantiated facts and sources.

All you've offered is recycled arguments care of Rush Limbaugh that have been refuted by the same Government agencies you say support them.

Start backing up your arguments with sources, and we can have a real debate.

The New Yorker article is just another clumsy attempt by the Left at political assassination.

Because you can't refute it?? LOL!

Thanks for revealing your inability to be objective. I'll be sure to avoid you again in the future.