I give credit where credit is due: Donald Rumsfeld

[codeorama]

I have more respect for Rumsfield by learning this.

But less for Bush. Don't get me wrong, Tarhog makes great points, I see exactly what he's getting at. But IMO, It seems and really seemed at the time, that what was going on was acceptable because of the inaction. It just comes across to me as if they feel they are "above the law". I don't mean literally, that's just the best way I can describe what I'm thinking.

But again, Kudos for Rumsfeld, it definatley puts him in a different light.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I'm guessing here that Rumsfeld's resignation wasn't accepted because the Administration felt to do so would give the world the impression that there was a lack of accountability and incompetence in the handling of Iraq.

That's probably a pretty good guess. It's a wonder he didn't get a promotion!

[Chief skin]

I truly believe that the actiions of a subordinate is a reflection upon the leadership or lack of leadership. In this whole mess the only people that were held accountble were a couple of grunts. The sad part is the administration fails to see that it makes them look worse then they already do

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chief skin

I truly believe that the actiions of a subordinate is a reflection upon the leadership or lack of leadership. In this whole mess the only people that were held accountble were a couple of grunts. The sad part is the administration fails to see that it makes them look worse then they already do

I don't think you realize that a majority of the public don't see the administration as a failure, nor that Iraq is a mess.

Yes, it is far from perfect, but what war plans ever are?

I hear the accusations of no post war plan, and can't help but think that for no plan, there has been huge success in some areas.

Please take this with a grain of salt, as I do support the president.

I don't always vote GOP and not always as conservative as I have been of late (libertarian in many views), but I honestly, in my heart, believe that President Bush has done quite well overall.

I also totally disagree with the whole abu graib so-called scandal.

It sucked that some people are jackholes, but come on, blame the President or Rumsfeld?

[FBChick]

Originally posted by chomerics

I know where you are coming from, but I think the analogy you used doesn't fit. The premise is that it was set up from the top. They didn't necessarily say to torture the people, but the situation was put in place to where it was allowed.

As for firing the person. . . if you were CEO at a Fortune 500 company where a woman was sexually harrassed. . . and it was because you mandated a dress code of thongs and bras only, then you could be fired. Just having someone sexually harassed in your company doesn't give the justification.

Do you see the point?

Actually your analogy is still off

It's more like a CEO put out a mandate to allow for relaxing the dress code and a VP took it a little further to basically require no dress code at all in his area(but didn't really pass that info up to the CEO). A team takes it upon themselves to go so far as inacting the bra and thong rule and a woman gets harrassed.

SHame on the CEO for not being aware of what is going on.. but that fact is he didn't give the order and wasn't entirely aware to what extent this was being taken... but yet he was willing to own up to his failure to be aware and tender his resignation, but that the board of directors decided that while the CEO may have made a mistake at not being more directive with his orders, that the company as a whole was still better off with this man at the helm, because he was in essence inacting the wishes of the board and getting very positive results in the process.

That's a better analogy of what went on here, and a much more realistic analogy of what happens constantly on a daily basis within private companies and government organizations.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by FBChick

Actually your analogy is still off

It's more like a CEO put out a mandate to allow for relaxing the dress code and a VP took it a little further to basically require no dress code at all in his area(but didn't really pass that info up to the CEO). A team takes it upon themselves to go so far as inacting the bra and thong rule and a woman gets harrassed.

SHame on the CEO for not being aware of what is going on.. but that fact is he didn't give the order and wasn't entirely aware to what extent this was being taken... but yet he was willing to own up to his failure to be aware and tender his resignation, but that the board of directors decided that while the CEO may have made a mistake at not being more directive with his orders, that the company as a whole was still better off with this man at the helm, because he was in essence inacting the wishes of the board and getting very positive results in the process.

That's a better analogy of what went on here, and a much more realistic analogy of what happens constantly on a daily basis within private companies and government organizations.

Good post!

[caps_skins]

Originally posted by FBChick

Actually your analogy is still off

It's more like a CEO put out a mandate to allow for relaxing the dress code and a VP took it a little further to basically require no dress code at all in his area(but didn't really pass that info up to the CEO). A team takes it upon themselves to go so far as inacting the bra and thong rule and a woman gets harrassed.

SHame on the CEO for not being aware of what is going on.. but that fact is he didn't give the order and wasn't entirely aware to what extent this was being taken... but yet he was willing to own up to his failure to be aware and tender his resignation, but that the board of directors decided that while the CEO may have made a mistake at not being more directive with his orders, that the company as a whole was still better off with this man at the helm, because he was in essence inacting the wishes of the board and getting very positive results in the process.

That's a better analogy of what went on here, and a much more realistic analogy of what happens constantly on a daily basis within private companies and government organizations.

Your analogy is pretty dead on! You can argue over how far accountable leaders should be, but I also agree that the order did not come as it was "filtered" down or interpreted. Personally, I think that leaders are held far less accountable in the private sector than in politics or the military (okay, maybe not politics either...). How many times did we experience CEOs and leaders of that level take responsibility for negligent or even criminal behavior? Never happens! In fact, it's not even publicised, except for rare occasions.

[Henry]

That analogy is ok, expect that instead of one woman getting harrassed, dozens and dozens of women were being harrassed, including a few rapes. And to top it all off, the story ends up on the cover of Business Today. Then I think we're getting closer to the nature of what had to be dealt with.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by chomerics

This is where our difference is Tarhog, I don't have the same confidence in Rummy you do. I see the other side, but I will also admit, as I did previously, that I was taken back by his offering.

Personally, I think it would have shown that we were accountable for our actions. Instead it has the appearance of doing nothing and ignoring the situation.

I think we disagree less than you realize. Like I've said, those instances of 'abuse' really pissed me off. To do something like that shows an utter and total lack of discipline, and also a real lack of understanding of how important it is for the US military to be the 'good guys' in a controversial war, not just in word, but in action.

I think most non-military guys (and no offense intended here) don't understand that the average military guy/gal is far more disappointed to see their image dragged through the mud than your average American citizen.

The only way I could see calling for a high-level resignation would be if this kind of behavior was wide-spread, or if it was encouraged or sanctioned from high levels on down. I reject both those assertions. Military leadership would never sanction this stuff. It might occur, but its not because military leaders are winking at their subordinates and turning a blind eye.

Of course there are bad apples, and there are undisciplined units. I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that, but these instances of abuse were isolated, and considering the huge number of troops we've had deployed, statistically represent a tiny fraction of our interactions with Iraqi's. Because the ugly scenes were played over and over and over for us on every media outlet in the West doesn't mean the activities were common.

If I thought they had been common and that Rumsfeld had given a wink and a nod, I'd be calling for his resignation, not lauding Bush for refusing to accept it. These were relatively isolated instances of bored boneheads losing control. Thats ALL they were. And when you consider how many US Marines and Soldiers have been blown to bits by IED's, its a tribute to our military that we haven't had far far worse instances of brutality.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I think we disagree less than you realize. Like I've said, those instances of 'abuse' really pissed me off. To do something like that shows an utter and total lack of discipline, and also a real lack of understanding of how important it is for the US military to be the 'good guys' in a controversial war, not just in word, but in action.

I think most non-military guys (and no offense intended here) don't understand that the average military guy/gal is far more disappointed to see their image dragged through the mud than your average American citizen.

The only way I could see calling for a high-level resignation would be if this kind of behavior was wide-spread, or if it was encouraged or sanctioned from high levels on down. I reject both those assertions. Military leadership would never sanction this stuff. It might occur, but its not because military leaders are winking at their subordinates and turning a blind eye.

Of course there are bad apples, and there are undisciplined units. I'd be a liar if I didn't acknowledge that, but these instances of abuse were isolated, and considering the huge number of troops we've had deployed, statistically represent a tiny fraction of our interactions with Iraqi's. Because the ugly scenes were played over and over and over for us on every media outlet in the West doesn't mean the activities were common.

If I thought they had been common and that Rumsfeld had given a wink and a nod, I'd be calling for his resignation, not lauding Bush for refusing to accept it. These were relatively isolated instances of bored boneheads losing control. Thats ALL they were. And when you consider how many US Marines and Soldiers have been blown to bits by IED's, its a tribute to our military that we haven't had far far worse instances of brutality.

Great post Tarhog, I do understand the mentality.

I grew up in the military, I was an Air Force brat and I've lived on many different bases. I have the utmost respect for the service they provide for our country and the sacrifices our soldiers give for us. It is something only someone who has been in those shoes can understand.

The whole prison scandal made me sick to my stomach. Not because of the Iraqis, but because of our soldiers over there doing their best to get the job done. It was their name dragged through the mud, and they are the ones fighting for us. It put the US is the spotlight for what not to do.

Personally, I think the setting for what occured started with Rumsfield. It started with the "torture memo" and went on from there. I could get more into the reasoning for my beliefs, but I will stop here.

BTW, thanks for letting me back in, I do miss the mental masturbation I get from ES, and I do appreciate you guys putting up with me

:peaceout:

[stevenaa]

"I agree, it was a courageous decision, if it did happen, but I just think the right decision was to get rid of him. It's the way society works, the way people expect industry to be run and the way I want my country run. If you make a dreadful mistake, you get fired. It's the way any rational CEO would run a company."

I guess the difference in our opinion is that you seem to think this was sanctioned by high command. There is no way it was, and there has been no real dispute to claim it was. Other than by the dumb arses that committed the crimes. People in private industry absolutely do not hold the CEO responsible for actions taken many levels below him, unless he sanctioned and supported those actions. If there was any evidence that Rumsfield new it was happening and either supported it or just failed to act, then his head should have been served up on a silver platter. I just think the knee jerk reaction calling for Rumsfields resignation is a sympton of a society that does not want to put responsiblity where it truly lies. Democrats wanted him out of the administration because the don't like him, and tried to use the prison scandal as an excuse to get rid of him.

"That analogy is ok, expect that instead of one woman getting harrassed, dozens and dozens of women were being harrassed, including a few rapes. And to top it all off, the story ends up on the cover of Business Today. Then I think we're getting closer to the nature of what had to be dealt with.

"

I think if dozens of dozens of women were raped, there would be significant reason to believe the CEO was aware of it. This would be more wide spread and could be expected to be known by higher management. The prison scandal was not wide spread. It was one prison and one group of prison guards acting out on their own.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by stevenaa

I guess the difference in our opinion is that you seem to think this was sanctioned by high command. There is no way it was, and there has been no real dispute to claim it was. Other than by the dumb arses that committed the crimes. People in private industry absolutely do not hold the CEO responsible for actions taken many levels below him, unless he sanctioned and supported those actions. If there was any evidence that Rumsfield new it was happening and either supported it or just failed to act, then his head should have been served up on a silver platter. I just think the knee jerk reaction calling for Rumsfields resignation is a sympton of a society that does not want to put responsiblity where it truly lies. Democrats wanted him out of the administration because the don't like him, and tried to use the prison scandal as an excuse to get rid of him.

I don't think it was "sanctioned", but I think the setting for this to occur was put in place by revoking the GWP via the torture memos.

I think if dozens of dozens of women were raped, there would be significant reason to believe the CEO was aware of it. This would be more wide spread and could be expected to be known by higher management. The prison scandal was not wide spread. It was one prison and one group of prison guards acting out on their own.

I disagree in that the Taguba report stated prison abuses were "systemic". Abuses were also found in other detainment camps, or prisons, but there was not the graphical evidence found at Abu Ghriab.

This doesn't mean that all the soldiers are bad, or commiting atrocities, I feel the complete opposite, but I also feel like the "systemic" problems of they system WERE a result of upper management's failures and the revoking of the GWP. There were numerous other cases in which there were detainees that died in captivity. Some were justifyable, but there were a few bad ones in there as well. One died of severe chest compression for example. All of these occcurances were commited outside of Abu Ghriab, so this is not just an isolated incident, but it also doesn't blame all of the soldiers either. I feel because of this, Rumsfield should have been fired.

I also agree with Code, my opinion of Rumsfield did improve in my book, but my opinion on Bush went down (not that it could really get much lower.)