What Rumsfeld didn't know and when he didn't know it.

The REAL issue here is the fact that the very people who SHOULD know what is going on, pretend NOT to know, and then act as if there is NO way they even COULD know..

Note to Mr. R.. It's your JOB, dude!!..

When people are sent into war, there will always be atrocites.. War , by very definition IS an atrocity..

Planning and oversight are notably absent in this war Bush & the boys have "sold us".. They are "playing soldier" with real soldiers, and they have no plan...no rules...no strategy.

One of the Bush supporting senators said the other night (about the torture) that a "commander" who does not know what's going on in his/her command, is derelict in their duty.. Of course when the questioner asked "how high does that responsibility go?", he quickly backpedalled, when he realized that the questioner was indicating that Bush , himself is the "commander in chief".

This group has sent hundreds of thousands of young (and not so young) people into harm's way...with weapons and no supervision..They entered a hostile place, full of people they cannot understand, customs they do not understand, and they have no "guidance", so the recipe for disaster is an easy one to follow..

People revert to pretty basic beings when they fear for their lives, and once that mindset is there, they can (and do) some pretty terrible things. Put some "rent-a-soldiers" into the mix, and it's not hard to see why the prison atrocities happened.

Rumsfeld and crew still seem to be more outraged at the fact that there were PICTURES, instead of the fact that the outrage HAPPENED.

It's absurd.. It's like having your mother raped, and being more upset that the rapist took pictures, than the fact that he raped her..


The real question is this...

If he didn't know....he should have, and he needs to go

If he Did know, and pretended not to, he needs to go..