Saturday, December 02, 2006

So little, so late, so what


Classified Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed ‘Major’ Change

Ya know, I’m more than a little skeptical of this “leaked” memo. It was supposedly written one day after President Bush interviewed Robert M. Gates as a potential successor to Rumsfeld and one day before the midterm elections.

The Pentagon spokesman, Eric Ruff, confirmed its authenticity with nary so much as a sideways glance. You remember in the past, how outraged and blustery the WH gets when a sensitive piece of information has been leaked? Why, they’ve even called for investigations so as to root out the leakers of such sensitive and embarrassing information.

And to leak it to the New York Times no less? The most hated paper in all the WH? And yet, not a peep, not a denial, not an excuse or explanation. Just a simple confirmation as to the memo’s authenticity. You know, the lack of righteous indignation might lead one to believe that this “memo” if authentic, may have been purposely leaked. But that couldn’t possibly be true because that would be dishonest, and sneaky, and underhanded...oh wait.

My skepticism could have something to do with this:


“Lawsuit Charges Rumsfeld as War Criminal”

The highlight?

"The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 provides plaintiffs the evidence they needed to prove that the US was unwilling to prosecute Americans for war crimes. The Military Commissions Act that was signed by President George Bush on October 17, 2006, attempts to grant immunity to US officials and military personnel by narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act; and by retroactively extending a defense for criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001. When Rumsfeld resigned on November 8, he virtually lost all legal immunity from international prosecution for war crimes because the Act only applies during the individual’s term of office."

Could have something to do with why I'm more than a little suspicious of the timing of this memo. But let’s play along for the time being. The memo is long, and fraught with information. For the sake of time, I’ll just be the link-baby. If you’d like to read the NYT story, it’s here. Click here the full text of the memo.

And more importantly, lest you think I’m a bad photographer and I suck at cropping, the photo of Rumsfeld was downloaded as is from the AP newswire some time ago and it is my favorite picture of Rumsfeld. Just goes to show that the camera is mightier than the pen AND the sword...

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Doohhhhhh.....you knew this had to happen sooner or later.

It'll be fun to watch the round of books come out from this administration's people. According to them, it will probably be an unbridled success. The United Mistakes of America.

Kansas said...

Thanks ever so much for making me “go there”. Now I’ll never get that mental image out of my head!

Anonymous said...

Oh MooGirl, no thanks needed. I know you'd do the same for me if you had the chance. hehehe


Here you go. Just to show you what a swell guy I am, next time I grill, I'll throw on something for you ok. ;)



Btw, I'm liking this guy everytime I read or hear him. At least he seems sane. ;)

Kansas said...

Glad to see you updated from your last grill.

And as far as the guy being sworn in using the Koran, has anyone considered that his oath would have a lot more meaning if he swore on a book that HE considered holy? If he doesn't consider the Bible holy, then he may as well be sworn in using the phone book.

Let him use what he wants.

Anonymous said...

That grill was a great loaner from the grocery store. Almost as good as the one I used with my car engine. ;)

Yep, I agree. And as far as the swearing-in process, no book is used from what I understand. It's raise-your-hand-and-swear-to-uphold-the-Consititution as someone official says the magic words. Books are for photo-ops.

Kansas said...

Are you sure they don’t use Bibles? I think they do. These are all Senators being sworn in:

A, B, C

Anonymous said...

Yep. They could forego any book and just raise their right hand and swear to it (as noted here or here or here and here.

If they wanted to do it correctly so it had some meaning relative to the office and the country, they should use the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.

Anonymous said...

I suppose we should clarify that the one is administering the oath of office and one is the swearing in of the congress critters.

But even with administering the oath of office, I have my doubts that a "book" is needed as long as they promise to uphold their pledge.