Rummy et al's EXCUSE:

"We didn't publicize this because of the harm it would/might do to our troops in Iraq."

This would be a plausible argument if:
1. War with Iraq had been unavoidable. It wasn't.
2. This administration had a reputation for being forthcoming in it's previous dealings with the press and public. They don't.

The argument is false.

you nailed that one.

Thanks.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Here's what's plausible: 'We didn't publicize this because we thought we could keep it hidden from Congress and the American people.'

off balance....this story has now turned the tables and "they" are off balance...soon to topple over.

that the Iraqi people knew all about it. They had heard the stories and seen the evidence all along. If something was going to endanger the troops it wasn't the American people knowing about the torture, it was the Iraqi people knowing about it, which they already did.

The Iraqi people also know something just as infuriating: that many of the people being detained in Iraqi prisons are innocent civilians who were caught up in sweeps and have done nothing wrong.

actually, pretty disgraceful.

Maybe I'm just completely out of the loop or a few ants shy of a picnic or something, but here's my wack-o take on it.

We've got a whole bunch of givens: the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, the * administration is non-transparent and secretive, etc. But no one is asking the correct question --

I've sat through the Senate hearing and now the House hearing is going on. Rumsfeld has just concluded his (rerun) opening remarks. And it's taken me a long time to write this, so maybe this thread will already be locked. But here goes, as if I were there, in the hearing, and had five or six minutes to address. . .. them.

"Mr. Secretary, there are ways the damage inflicted by the public release of these photos could have been significantly minimized. I'm not asking you if there are ways; I'm telling you that there are. Given that the Department of Defense knew about the allegations of abuse as early as January and given that Gen. Myers has admitted he was approached by CBS about the delaying of the release of the photos, openness by the Department with both the legislative branch of the government and with the world public would almost certainly have mitigated the damage.

"It is not a matter of protecting the rights of those who have been or may in the future be charged with perpetrating these outrages. It IS a matter of protecting the lives of American and coalition troops, protecting the lives of civilians in Iraq -- including contractor employees, aid workers, and Iraqi citizens -- and protecting the lives of women, men, children around the world who represent potential victims of terrorist attacks. This is not to say that either set of rights trumps another; it is to say that BOTH sets of rights should have been taken into consideration.

"My sense at this point, Mr. Secretary, is that the protection of the rights of the accused is more of an excuse behind which you are hiding than it is a legitimate explanation for your action -- or rather, inaction. I suspect, with all due respect, that it was more a matter of maintaining secrecy, maintaining control, and maintaining power that motivated the silence of the Department of Defense on this issue.

"I offer, therefore, this suggestion. It is not a suggestion for how to fix the damage that has been done, and yet perhaps by admitting, honestly and fully, how unnecessary the damage was, we may begin the journey to healing.

"Given that Gen. Myers has admitted asking CBS to delay the broadcast of the pictures and has admitted knowing that the information, including the pictures, would be released to the public in the very near future, why did not Gen. Myers bring this to the Secretary's attention? That's the first thing.

"The second thing is why did the Secretary, and the rest of the Executive Branch right up to and including the President, why did they not go to the public, go to CBS, and offer the information themselves?

"Would this not have softened the blow as well as protecting the reputation of the Administration?

"I think, Mr. Secretary, that all too often we look at the horrible damage done by avoidable and preventable actions and we believe that the magnitude of the damage implies a corresponding magnitude of preventive measures. We tend to forget the adage of a stitch in time saving nine.

"Just as the tragic events of 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN MINIMIZED IF NOT PREVENTED ENTIRELY through reasonable warnings to the airlines, the tragic events following the public release of these photographic images could indeed have been mitigated if the Secretary and members of the chain of command had taken command of the situation. They could have apprised members of the Congress, and they could indeed have taken at least some of the information public themselves.

"I get the sad and tragic feeling at times that the Secretary almost wanted the events to fall out this way, for whatever reason I cannot imagine. But I also know that it has become part of the cultural fabric of this nation that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. That came out of the Watergate scandal, which has now morphed into what is being called the Torturegate scandal. Whether one lies about a bungled burglary in a Washington hotel or about an illicit sexual relationship in a Washington office, the failure to come clean, to be open and honest about wrong-doing is always the cause of disaster.

"I would ask, therefore, only one question. And if that question has no sensible answer, I would offer that the leadership has been inadequate and needs to be replaced, as soon as possible. My question is: Why, knowing that the pictures would be released and knowing that only outrage could result, why did the Secretary not go public himself, effectively 'pre-empting' both CBS and Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker? Why, given that CBS agreed to delay the broadcasting of the photos for two full weeks, why did the Secretary not use that time to read the Taguba report and any others that might be in the works? Why did the Secretary effectively allow our military and our national reputation to be blindsided, when he himself was not?

"Mr. Secretary, an answer of 'I don't know; I wish I had done it otherwise' will be unacceptable. A secretary of defense who doesn't know why he makes decisions that affect our military effectiveness in a time of so-called war, that affect our national security in terms of the understandable rage building against us around the world, that affect our nation's reputation and future is a secretary of defense who needs -- NEEDS -- to resign immediately.

"Thank you."

It wasn't what Nixon and his henchmen DID that brought them down.
It was the trying to hide it.
Why can politicians apparently never EVER learn from the past?

Imagine the much different effect this would have had on our nation, and the world, if Rumsfeld had called a press briefing.

"Ladies and gentlemen, my aides are passing out some pictures that you will find horrifying. They are horrifying to me. Disgusting."
You can fill in the rest.

Just overpoweringly STUPID to try and cover this up.

Exactly.

I mean, c'mon, folks, if you KNOW the evidence is going to come out -- can we say "Richard Milhous Nixon"? -- you take action. You don't sit there and think up excuses.

But that seems to be what they did. No one read the Taguba report, no one asked to see the photos or shake down the entire military establishment to find other copies if CBS claimed exclusive rights.

We are dealing with really stupid people here.

But I suspect many of the folks on "our" side aren't much smarter.

Sheesh.

What a bunch of bull shit. The pile is just getting deeper and deeper.

The close relative of the BS you state is Bush's repeated statement that, "We don't want those soldiers to have died in vain." So, uh, we're supposed to buy into the wacky bullshit they tell us about what a noble war this is, and how great its going, and how when it's going really ugle, well, that's GOOD because we're creating new terrorists so fast that we will kill them all off more quickly, etc.

Yeah -- I'm sure all the troops in Iraq, to a man, would want all their fellow citizens to turn off their brains, and accept uncritically EVERYTHING "the government" tells them. Sorry, nice try, Tour Chimperial Highness, but we all know that's BS

Common theme in this misministration -- exploit the raw emotions of the people in order to try to get them to buy into some vicious, stupid, ideology and bizarre vision, incompetently carried out.