Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.

This was one of the worst. And they all together are getting our guys killed
in
Iraq

"our guys"? while I'm sure a few of those service members killed were DNC card
carriers, surely you don't consider us "political neutrals" or, God forbid,
Republican card carriers as part of some group you're a part of (like fellow
American)?

I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
Clinton for winning the election.

I know you didn't type this Walt, but this guy must be the DNC chairman. Bush
left those troops in Somalia to continue to protect food shipments. Only a true
left wing nut would put Somalia in the "vast right wing conspiracy" catagory.

The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
President Bush is doing.

No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.

I would love to see a site that posted that JTF-HOA was downsized so JTF-7
could be plussed up. This doesn't stand up to the facts.

Bears repeating.

Because if you repeat something untrue enough times it makes it true?

Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
climate he created.

Then please explain why I wasn't drawn to pot smoking, cheating on my wife with
a fat woman or lying under oath during the Clinton administration.

Great comments. Don't expect to sway locksteppers like BUFDRVR

Walt


Lockstepper? You lowly anti-American left wing zealot. You have no idea about
who I do, and do not support. Go away loser.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
Clinton for winning the election.

I know you didn't type this Walt, but this guy must be the DNC chairman.

Can you suggest another reason that Pres. Bush rebuffed pleas by various
humanitarian organizations to send troops for a year, and then sent them once
he lost the election?

The thing is that Bush Sr. is more responsible for what happened in Modadisgu
than the Clinton administration is.

It's largely forgotten, but this was a hideous thing that Bush Sr. did.

Walt

Then please explain why I wasn't drawn to pot smoking, cheating on my wife
with
a fat woman or lying under oath during the Clinton administration.


So you have been since?

Walt

Than you should have no problem producing that quote.


BUFDRVR

Here's one:

"Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all
7
continents, this is ridiculous."

Walt


You obviously don't know or can't comprhend the difference between the
President being "ultimately responsible" (that is; responsible as C-in-C for
the *overall conduct* of the U.S. military) and responsible for each and ever
action of over 1 million service members. You are "flip-flopping" (go Kerry
,go) yet again. Several posts ago you said a commander (much lower in the Chain
of Command than the C-In-C) was not personally responsible if a vehicle was not
properly maintained by a negligent NCO, now you're saying the "ultimate
responsibility" of the President means he's responsible for every individual
U.S. members actions. Perhaps in your examples, your commander is a Democrat?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Can you suggest another reason that Pres. Bush rebuffed pleas by various
humanitarian organizations to send troops for a year, and then sent them once
he lost the election?

See, once again your politics interfere with accurate information. Here's a
qoute from Globalsecurity.org;

"Operation Provide Relief - Somalia

Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992, when the White House
announced US military transports would support the multinational United Nations
relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people deployed to Mombasa, Kenya,
during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia to
reduce reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron
deployed with the ground support contingent, USAFE's only contribution to the
operation. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical
supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations, trying to
help over three million starving people. When this proved inadequate to stop
the massive death and displacement of Somali people (500,000 dead; 1.5 million
refugees or displaced), the U.S. in December 1992 launched a major coalition
operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities. The operation was
successful in stopping the famine and saving an estimated 200,000 lives, as
well as de-escalating the high-intensity civil war into low-level, local
skirmishes."

Seems Bush was responding to an actual need and not to "set up" Clinton. You
guys and these "vast right wing conspiracies" will they never end.


The thing is that Bush Sr. is more responsible for what happened in Modadisgu
than the Clinton administration is.


Not in reality, but in your little lefty world of course it is. More from
Globalsecurity.org;

"On December 3rd, U.N. Security Resolution 794 authorized the U.S. led
intervention "to use all necessary means to establish a secure environment for
humanitarian relief operations in Somalia as soon as possible."

Say it aint so! A U.N. operation, just like all you leftys love.

More;

"By March 1993, mass starvation had been overcome, and security was much
improved. At its peak, almost 30,000 US military personnel participated in the
operation, along with 10,000 personnel from twenty-four other states."

You're right, that evil Bush, all he did was order an operation that saved
hundreds of thousands of Somalis.

It's largely forgotten, but this was a hideous thing that Bush Sr. did.

What color is the sky in your world? The only hideous thing done in Somalia was
done by the U.N. and approved by Clinton. Once the operation changed from a
security one to "nation building" it was doomed. Every military advisor to
Clinton told him to pull out U.S. forces before the operation changed direction
OR beef up the U.S. presence significantly. Clinton ignored them, left U.S.
force strength the same and proceeded with an entirely different mission. The
results were predictible.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
him?

Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
a "slam dunk" case.

That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.

That's not all. Here are a few more links that prove the point:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...woodward.book/
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2383
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=38198
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124110/posts

There's a lot more but that ought to prove that an awful lot of people heard and
reported the statement. If anyone needs an audio tape of the statement, they
can probably find one somewhere in Google if it's worth the effort.

George Z.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading military newspaper said that US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

"This was a failure that ran straight to the top," said the editorial
appearing in the May 17 edition of the Military Times weeklies.

"Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top
leaders from duty in a time of war," it said.

Owned by Gannett, the Military Times publishes the Army, Navy and Air
Force times, weeklies that are widely read by servicemembers and
distributed on US military bases around the world.

The editorial said the soldiers caught in photographs and videos
abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison are referred to around the
Pentagon as "the six morons who lost the war."

"But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons," it
said.

Responsibility, it said, "extends all the way up the chain of command
to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian
leadership."

"The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish,"
it said.

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever. The message to the troops: Anything
goes."

The editorial also faults General Richard Myers, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, for trying to persuade CBS television to
refrain from airing the images while failing to read the army's own
damning internal report detailing the abuses.

"On the battlefield, Myers' and Rumsfelds' errors would be called a
lack of situational awareness -- a failure that amounts to
professional negligence," it said.

wrote:

A leading military newspaper said that US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing more
than the opinion of a single person. Hardly a news worthy item. Hell, I can
submit an editorial next week refuting everything this guy says. If they print
it does that make it true?

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.
From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention. It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry. A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans in
Iraq.

From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva. Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse the
issue with dubious "facts".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.

No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans
in
Iraq.

Where do you see that?

From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions?

Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse
the
issue with dubious "facts".

You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away from
the facts.

Walt

You obviously don't know or can't comprhend the difference between the
President being "ultimately responsible" (that is; responsible as C-in-C for
the *overall conduct* of the U.S. military) and responsible for each and ever
action of over 1 million service members. You are "flip-flopping" (go Kerry
,go) yet again. Several posts ago you said a commander (much lower in the
Chain
of Command than the C-In-C) was not personally responsible if a vehicle was
not
properly maintained by a negligent NCO, now you're saying the "ultimate
responsibility" of the President means he's responsible for every individual
U.S. members actions. Perhaps in your examples, your commander is a Democrat?


What I've said on this issue is pretty much what the editorial staff at the
Military Times has said. I am willing to leave it there.

Walt