General Peter Pace, 2nd in Command in Iraq said Prez KNEW ABOUT ABUSE

Someone should get this video captured before it disappears...
"Congress Questions Pentagon" at
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml

He only said one word... YES.... when asked if the president knew about this... !!!!!!!
Smirky said he found out about it on TV.
I think congress should impeach them all

I hope the general avoids small airplanes and tall buildings over the next 6 months.

KICK

KICK KICK KICK!!

nt

Look for this man to be suicided, or involved in an "accident" at any time now- these bastards will stop at nothing to remain in power and cover up their crimes against humanity.

Glad to know that you've heard about the Bush Body Count.

for the welcome- I appreciate it. By the way- FLUSH RUSH

the #2 general in the entire military. Actually higher up than the #2 in Iraq.

Pretty soon into the video, they show the press conference. Pace was asked directly if he know. He says yes, for quite some time. When asked if Bush knew, he simply says "Yes."

Peter Pace, 45 seconds into the interview.

here.

:kick:

See Oak of Office's link above

the torture and the rape rooms from Iraq.

Unbelievable.

He knew about the abuse (though Scotty would say "allegations of"), but he didn't know about the _pictures_ until they were on TV.

That's what you get for having other people read off one-page summary memos to you, Chim-Chim!

the pentagon was in deep coverup mode, bet they (rummy and myers, etc) thought they could convince CBS not to airthe photos...for national security purposes. But BAM....not enough time to warn the chimp.

And did Big Dick know?

Bush is claiming to be mad because he supposedly didn't know about the pictures before they went public. Yesterday there were several stories that said he knew about the torture in December or January.

He knew. He knew and did nothing until the pictures surfaced and the crap hit the fan.

He needs to testify before Congress under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. I would also be interested in hearing him explain why Taguba's report was classified. THAT would be very interesting.

Unless Chenny is there with him to hold his tally-whacker--by the way, is it just me, or does Dicky look like the epitomy of evil? That guy is just plain creepy.

N-O-V-E-M-B-E-R.

A quantified :kick:

This whole exercise is just another stupid brick in the wall. So George W. Bush the War criminal and yada yada yada also is lying about knowing about this is not really much of a surprise.

The only real surprise is seeing one of these brave generals (I think it was more of a response not thought through well) that the war criminal he takes his orders from is trying to deceive people.

I don't think this loose cannon's admission will get much play. The proletariat will be shutting it down and keeping it out of any part mass brain wash apparatus they control.

it...IMPEACH BUSH AND THE WHOLE CABAL!!!!!! Sorry for shouting but God/dess forgive me, I abhor those murdering bastards as I have never hated before.

Jenn

To think they would give orders for snipers to shoot others giving immobile wounded assistance and care should be a clue.

The definition they use to justify what they do, change as they do them, everyone should know that by now (unless they have been living under a rock).

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/kubark.htm

(snip)
F. Threats and Fear

The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain. The same principle holds for other fears: sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened. "In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance." (18)

The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on what sort of person the interrogatee is and whether he believes that his questioner can and will carry the threat out but also on the interrogator's reasons for threatening. If the interrogator threatens because he is angry, the subject frequently senses the fear of failure underlying the anger and is strengthened in his own resolve to resist. Threats delivered coldly are more effective than those shouted in rage. It is especially important that a threat not be uttered in response to the interrogatee's own expressions of hostility. These, if ignored, can induce feelings of guilt, whereas retorts in kind relieve the subject's feelings.

Another reason why threats induce compliance not evoked by the inflection of duress is that the threat grants the interrogatee time for compliance. It is not enough that a resistant source should placed under the tension of fear; he must also discern an acceptable escape route. Biderman observes, "Not only can the shame or guilt of defeat in the encounter with the interrogator be involved, but also the more fundamental injunction to protect one's self-autonomy or 'will'.... A simple defense against threats to the self from the anticipation of being forced to comply is, of course, to comply 'deliberately' or 'voluntarily'.... To the extent that the foregoing interpretation holds, the more intensely motivated the is to resist, the more intense is the pressure toward early compliance from such anxieties, for the greater is the threat to self-esteem which is involved in contemplating the possibility of being 'forced to' comply...." (6) In brief, the threat is like all other coercive techniques in being most effective when so used as to foster regression and when joined with a suggested way out of the dilemma, a rationalization acceptable to the interrogatee.

The threat of death has often been found to be worse than useless. It "has the highest position in law as a defense, but in many interrogation situations it is a highly ineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refused to yield in the face of such threats who have subsequently been 'broken' by other procedures." (3) The principal reason is that the ultimate threat is likely to induce sheer hopelessness if the interrogatee does not believe that it is a trick; he feels that he is as likely to be condemned after compliance as before. The threat of death is also ineffective when used against hard-headed types who realize that silencing them forever would defeat the interrogator's purpose. If the threat is recognized as a bluff, it will not only fail but also pave the way to failure for later coercive ruses used by the interrogator.
(snip)

Kudos to General Pace for letting us know that W. knew.

Btw. General Peter Pace isn't the 2nd in Command in Iraq, he is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, i.e. the Nation's 2nd highest ranking military officer.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/pace_bio.html

Please write your congressman/woman and give them this link!
THIS MUST BE SEEN!!!!

Spread this wide!

I was thinking about this yesterday at work. They will try and discredit this guy and the story if it get much play. They are going to have use the ole misunderestimated me line back out.

CBS is the only TV news operation not completely in the pocket of GE, Microsoft, and the Republican corporate machine, but they don't have a 24/7 news channel like FOX or CNN to repeat these stories again and again until they become almost ingrained.

But we have one here :kick:

:kick:

when does he say or imply that Bush knew? I mean, around what date/month?

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videoplayer/newVid/footer_video.shtml?201

Play any CBS video and then scroll down to "CONGRESS QUESTIONS PENTAGON"

I meant...I can't watch the video here at work. I was wanting a brief transcript or something of that nature.

KICK!!!!

It's such a short one word answer, lots of people will miss it!

But I bet his bosses didn't! Bet you don't see him on TV again!

n/t

:kick:

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040505-1427.html


PACE: Well, two different parts need to be understood. One is the reporting up the chain of command, which was done immediately. On the 13th of January, the allegations by the soldier inside the unit were reported to his Army chain of command. On the 14th of January, the Criminal Investigative Division team was sent to do the investigation. The phone calls were made up the chain of command. I know I knew about it within hours of the 14th of January. And everyone was kept apprised orally of the ongoing investigation.
The major general completed the investigation. And what happens with the paperwork itself is that each commander in the chain looks at the work, reads it in detail, does his analysis of what he or she should be doing with it, makes their decisions, and then sends it up the chain.

So the fact that the paperwork did not get to Washington DC did not mean that the information did not. In fact, it did.
STORM: So you’re saying that General Richard Myers was well aware of the situation and that the president was well aware of the situation as well?
PACE: Yes.

I heard him say that live. "yes.'" I almost dropped my spatula.

They cut away from him right after that, so I wasn't sure who he was, but I gathered he was an important official in the loop.

I was hoping a DU thread with the specifics would pop up. I got the sense Pace knew full well the implications of his answer:

Yes - he was in effect saying -- the President (Commander in Chief) knew about the torture since January, at least, and did nothing about it until 6 days ago -- when the photos came out and he could no longer hide what he has his army are doing in the name of the American people.

Where are you from, if you don't mind saying?

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040505-1427.html

From today's photo op with the King of Jordan...

Q Mr. President, if this problem at the prisons was first noticed late last year, why has it taken this long for actions to be taken? And what did you tell Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I tell him I should have known about the pictures and the report. And as I understand it, the -- General Kimmitt declared to the press corps, in Iraq I believe it was, that there was an ongoing investigation. In other words, he made it clear. The Army said, we've discovered something, we've discovered an issue, and, therefore, we're now going to investigate it. It was a declaration to -- to the world that there was an issue, and then there is a process.

....after Smirky utters the word "understand" he gets all muddled up?

Interesting too that ONLY today AFTER the polls were 75% FOR that he SHOULD HAVE issued an APOLOGY yesterday he mentions "I told the King today that I am sorry"....??? He reports he did it but only second hand??
Bizarro World.

on September 11 until he saw it on TV...
This effing liar, George W Bush is a treassonous traitor. A sellout.

He KNEW about 9-11 and he KNEW about the torture in Iraq.
He did NOTHING, but hide from the truth by claiming he "didn't fucki*g KNOW.
How much more outrageous, murderous policy does is take.

When John Kerry is sworn in as President of the United States, in Jan. 05, the VERY FIRST thing he should do is to order criminal charges be brought to the entire Bush administration. Let them duke it out in front of an Attorney General appointed by Pres. Kerry.

These criminal charges should include war profiteering, cronyism, and treason. Not one of Bush's cabinet or family members should escape prosecution.

This is the ONLY way the United States of America will ever begin to gain any semblance of World respect.
We need to prosecute our own criminals for their raid on the World.

We will need to show the World that America and the Bush administration are NOT one and the same.

Prosecute every one of them, no matter how far it reaches, nor how long it takes.

I am so freakin sick of this!!

It never made sense that a Pres. wouldn't be informed of a looming
explosive scandal.

:kick:

ttt - To the top!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:kick:

:kick:

They knew of it, must of even approved of it, were and might even still be doing it in other places like Gitmo. Now the cat is out of the bag they are trying to cover their tracks. Lots of the rest of the world already knew about it. Now everybody in the world knows about it.

I think that they felt that they could contain this thing as long as it was in the form of a long written classified report. The fact that the pictures got out into the public arena was the main blow.

I think this Marine just landed on this gang of thugs.

of our corporate media outlets? I haven't heard much about this and not a word in my local rag.

....

BROWNSTEIN: Well, the problem I think he has on Capitol Hill, he doesn't have a well of goodwill. They feel Secretary Rumsfeld has not shared information with them all the way through. A lot of Republicans don't feel that fondly toward him to begin with. On the other hand, President Bush doesn't like to remove people under pressure. He tends to view that as giving in to the other side. As you saw today, that very firm statement.

I thought what he was doing by putting out the story of him reprimanding Rumsfeld was trying to reestablishing the idea of the president being commander, exerting leadership here. That is the core of his argument for reelection, that he is a strong and decisive leader on the war on terror. At times he has looks a little passive. Handing things off to Mr. Brahimi, deferring to generals on how many troops we need. I think this was a clear statement saying I am in control, especially it came out he was informed of this basic problem in January. And it's not exactly clear exactly what he did in the interim either?

DOBBS: He being the secretary of defense?

BROWNSTEIN: The president. The president. We reported today, the secretary of defense informed him in January at least of the broad outlines of the problem. And the White House felt -- the president felt it was being investigated. And again, it gets to the issue of management style, whether the president is aggressively managing the details of these problems. I'm some of the same issues that came up on the August 6th briefing in 2001, what he did in response to getting the information. WATSON: Lou, there's an interesting comparison imerging...

DOBBS: Very quickly, Carlos.


http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/06/ldt.00.html

he didn't know about the existence of the pics or the report. Pace says in the interview that just because the paperwork didn't get to DC doesn't mean the info didn't make it either. Pace doesn't contradict Bush's statement.

Pace is also one of Bush's favorite generals, according to Bob Woodward's book.

Here's a very interesting report by Will Pitt on truthout.org:
http://truthout.org/docs_04/050604A.shtml

Thank you, Will!! I don't think I could have survived this far if it wasn't for your good work on Truthout! Thank you for the service you are doing!!

:kick:

And Iraq was the frontline against terrorism. Is it any wonder that even a lowly private from West Virginia would put two and two together.