is it safe to say even the public MIGHT acknowledge, at this point

Speaking of which, anybody saw that:

Republican members of the Senate are planning to introduce police-state- style "thought control" legislation designed to prohibit criticism of Israel on American college campuses. The third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, conservative Rick Santorum (Pa.), plans to introduce so-called "ideological diversity" legislation that would cut federal funding for thousands of American colleges and universities if those institutions are found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, which Santorum considers to be an act of "anti-Semitism." http://www.rense.com/general37/idleg.htm
 
an interesting point brought up, or at least, as i was interpreting it, was rumsfeld resigning as a show of the severity of the situation, which i then took as a sort of shameful/'discgraced' example to his fellow armed folk
 
rumsfeld is only "responsible" for this to the degree he's responsible for a lot of bad shit by being a bad, bad person and engineering bad things. still, i want to see him gone. and somebody big really does need to get the boot.

i don't THINK it will happen, though.
 
I doubt it also, Bush is too attached to him, they look like they are siamese twins attached by the head, and its Rumsfeld doing the thinking, which can't be any good for anybody...
 
Rumsfeld and Cheney are PNACers who have shaped this course of events up to this moment for two decades or more. It's highly unlikely that either will bow out now.
 
my current thought is that considering rumsfeld has been around for 30+ years in some form or other, his stepping down will only benefit everyone who wants him around.
 
well, i think the only way he will step down is if his stepping down will not diminish his role in shaping American policy. which is entirely possible--he could just be paid by a think tank as a consultant and everything except his public appearances would remain exactly the same.
 
I agree with that. It appears that the british are also in the beating POW business, whihc I didn't know:

Soldier C went on: "One of the worst things I witnessed was Corporal ***** demonstrating what he could do.
"He went up to one of the prisoners who still had a sandbag on his face and was poking his fingers into his eyeballs until the guy was screaming in pain.
"The main thing was holding prisoners' hands up and they'd whack them in the ribs. It would happen on every shift. Whenever guards changed over they'd all do the same. So these guys would get a continual battering.
 
the British, like pretty much every other nation, are worse than the Americans in terms of prisoner abuse. the whole British military rape stuff in 28 Days Later was really accurate, i think.

i don't think anyone's saying the American military is doing anything worse than what other people are doing. this is all about the fact that America is held to higher standards than other countries...standards that it's not quite living up to.

and i agree. America should be held to a higher standard than most other countries.
 
I just didn't know about the british having a similar scandal, that's all. In that particular case, it is quite appropriate for the US to be held to a higher standard considering how that war was handled and promoted before it actually happened. That said, any abuse of POW anywhere is punishable, whether or not that has to be public is debatable but you'd better be damn sure it is not going to leak if you are going to keep this secret.