Your humble narrator was quoted:

WalterM140 wrote:

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.

So you didn't even read the article? What a boob. His "highest levels of
civilian control" ended at the SecDef, not the President. Post an article and
then not even know what it says. Typical troll.


Well, here's what the Military Times editorial said:

"But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges,
it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the
military hierarchy and its civilian leadership."

That would seem to be covered by the phrase, "words to that effect."

Also, I didn't post the article originally. It does back up substantially
what I said. The president is ultimately responsible for what the military
does or doesn't do. Or are you saying that the president -can't- sanction the
SecDef over -his- failures? That responsibility stops at the SecDef and
-cannot- go further? I mean, seriously now, Rumsfeld has -said- he is
responsible for these abuses. He said that. And to whom does he report? The
president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people, who, pray to
God, will kick his Connecticut cowboy butt all the way back to Crawford come
November.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion
of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.

Why should I?

Because Webb is a graduate of the Naval Academy, former Marine Officer and
true American hero.

I could do a 10 minute search on the internet and find an article
written by someone touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history.

You should do that then.

This was in the NY Times yesterday:

It was a measure of the troubles Mr. Bush is running into within his own party
that Senator Pete V. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who usually sides with
the administration, expressed his frustration to Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld on Wednesday that he could find no clear vision in the
administration's Iraq strategy.

"I am very worried about how prepared the Iraqis are to take over this
responsibility and, secondly, what we have done to prepare ourselves and them
to work together to make this work," Mr. Domenici told Mr. Rumsfeld at a budget
hearing. "I can envision that this situation will not work, and that we won't
have an organizational structure that will do anything other than have
Americans fighting and us supplying those fighters with more and more money."

The unease among conservatives has also been given voice in recent days by a
number of influential commentators. George F. Will wrote in The Washington Post
on Tuesday of a series of "failures" by the administration for which no one was
held accountable, including post-war planning that was "botched." On Monday,
the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that there was a clear consensus
among Republicans in Congress, Republican fund-raisers, contributors and others
he had canvassed that Mr. Rumsfeld had to resign."

If you can find an article:

"touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history."

I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise, you might consider stopping the
self-flagellation.

Would you post that if you happened across it?

Maybe. Such an article would be hard to find I am thinking. Pretty much every
one knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disastrous failure.

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC.
What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

Now we can talk about lies.

On 11 May you posted this:

I said: (that being BUFDRVR)

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

You responded:

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


I haven't seen anything that contradicts my statement. What seems to have
happened is that it became more and more obvious that OIF was foundering, that
pressure was ramped up on the detainees.

Again, I tried to attach abuse reports to the growing involvement of foriegn
fighters when I wrote:


What I said seems pretty well ringed about with qualifications. I don't have
enough information. We do know that at some point, many detainees were treated
like animals -- worse than animals -- by US servicemen.


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

You retorted:

"You can try and show that."


Can you show that or not? Do you think that changing the subject and calling
me names will get you off the hook?

Walt