Rumsfeld Had To Approve Air Strikes Where 30+ Civis Die

[marksimons]

This one sneaked under the radar.

Rumsfeld.

What. A. Man.

Dead Reckoning

Bush Warriors Sign Off on War Crimes

By CHRIS FLOYD

The armchair warriors who directed the American-led conquest of Iraq would like us to believe that the estimated 10,000 innocent civilians who died in the invasion were simply unfortunate, inadvertant, unavoidable, accidental victims of a just and noble action. No one wanted these innocent people to die. Surely no American leader ever knowingly ordered a mission with the certain knowledge that innocent people were going to be killed by it. These deaths just happened; no one is to blame for them.

That's what the armchair warriors tell the world -- and themselves too, no doubt, when they look into the mirror every morning. But like almost every other statement issued by the Bush Regime on the subject of Iraq, this comforting fairytale is a cynical, blood-soaked lie. To take just one example: American military commanders revealed last week that up to 1,500 civilian deaths were personally approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

In a debriefing for American and "Coalition" brass, U.S. Lieutenant General Michael Mosley confirmed that all air war commanders were required to get Rumsfeld's direct approval for any airstrike that would likely kill more than 30 innocent people, the New York Times reports. That certainly sounds like admirably strict oversight for such a momentous battlefield decision. In practice, however, Rumsfeld's management of the process was based on the same philosophy that his boss George W. Bush applied to death-penalty cases when he was governor of Texas: "What the hell, let 'em fry!"

More than 50 times, Rumsfeld was approached with mission plans likely to leave at least 30 innocent people vaporized and mutilated by unstoppable high-tech weaponry crashing down on them without warning, without the slightest chance of escape. More than 50 times, Rumsfeld signed his name to these multiple death-warrants: every such mission was approved, said Mosley.

Of course, an accurate count of the civilians killed at Rumsfeld's direct order is impossible to obtain. In the fiery chaos of the invasion, hundreds, perhaps thousands of dead civilians were buried in makeshift graves, unmarked graves, even mass graves, often by strangers. These corpses may never be fully accounted for. So we must make do with estimates. We could lowball it--an average of, say, "only" six civilian deaths per mission instead of the likely 30--and come up with a figure of 300 innocent men, women and children eviscerated at Rumsfeld's personal command. A more contentious high-balling--an average of 50 civilian deaths per mission--would give us at least 2,500 innocent men, women and children burned to death and blown to bits on Rumsfeld's order: a number approaching the death toll of the September 11 attacks.

Bushist minions would doubtless say that this "collateral damage" is the unintentional by-product of actions designed to achieve strictly military objectives. What's more, American forces placed unprecedented restraints on their rules of engagement precisely to avoid civilian casulties.

True enough. But when the overall military action itself is unjust--based on the calculated perversion of public trust by lies invoking an "imminent threat" which was patently non-existent, and on the constantly insinuated blood libel that Iraq was somehow complicit in the September 11 massacres; when, furthermore, the military action is illegal--an act of unilateral aggression unsanctioned by international law, the UN Charter or the Constitution of the United States (which does not give Congress the authority to delegate its warmarking powers to the personal whim of the president)--then the innocent deaths that result from such an action cannot be "justified" as the result of "normal" wartime operations.

In this context of illegality, the Bushists are left with nothing but the logic of gangsterism--an "Al Capone" Defense: "I tried real hard not to kill too many innocent bystanders when I robbed that bank." No court would accept such "restraint" as mitigation for murders committed in the course of criminal activity.

It's clear that the civilian deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq cannot be ascribed to some bloodless abstraction--"the fortunes of war," etc.,--but are instead the direct personal responsibility of all those in the national leadership of America and Britain who concocted and promulgated this illicit enterprise. And the greatest share of guilt must go to those who wield the greatest authority. The blood of hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent people is thus smeared across the snarling visage of Donald Rumsfeld.

But the ultimate responsibility must be laid at the ultimate authority, the man who indeed insists that it was his imperial will alone that launched the invasion: George W. Bush. True, it's painfully obvious that he is the witless mouthpiece of ideological extremists like Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney--those Bolsheviki of the boardroom. In fact, Bush is apparently ignorant of the actual events that led up to the war: in one of his very rare unscripted remarks, he panicked and told reporters last week that he invaded Iraq only after Saddam Hussein "wouldn't allow UN inspectors into the country"--a breathtaking display of disassociation from reality.

Nonetheless, this fatuous delusionary willingly placed himself at the head of the extremist junta that is now bankrupting his own country and killing thousands of innocent people as it runs roughshod over the world. His carefully-cultivated ignorance doesn't excuse his guilt. He may hope, as his accomplice Tony Blair pathetically declared last week, that "history will forgive us" for waging war under false pretenses; but in their unmarked graves, the murdered dead will forever call him to account.

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd07292003.html

[djxeno]

that fucker. he's gonna have a nice time in hell.

i hope he brings his sun tan lotion. :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame:

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by djxeno

that fucker. he's gonna have a nice time in hell.

i hope he brings his sun tan lotion. :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame:

I don't think the sun tan lotion can help a pitch fork being shoved up his ass. The evil bastard.

[normalnoises]

Interesting, silence from the clueless right and the neocons who support "King George the imbecile" and murdering henchmen like Rumsfeld.

[marksimons]

heheh... looks like america gets fucked over by king george's....

muahaha..

time for another 'madness of king george' methinks.

anyway, iggy iggy iglooooo where are yoooouuuuu...

the silence does indeed speak volumes.

I believe this is quite literally indefensable.

so.

who has ordered the death's of more civilians? Rumsfled, or Osama, Rumsfeld. or Osama.

I have a feeling it's going to be Rumsfeld...

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

heheh... looks like america gets fucked over by king george's....

anyway, iggy iggy iglooooo where are yoooouuuuu...

the silence does indeed speak volumes.

who has ordered the death's of more civilians? Rumsfled, or Osama, Rumsfeld. or Osama.

I have a feeling it's going to be Rumsfeld...

First of all, unless you were in the streets for the last decade protesting against Saddam Hussein and his genocide, you can not now pretend you care about Iraqi civilians...

If you did not care Hussein and his regime were murdering hundreds of thousands, why care now?...

Because you are fucking hypocritical blowhards.

Secondly, comparing Rumsfeld and binLaden is dispicable, and could only be said by a repulsive cunt wth serious issues.

Lastly, as the author had a moment of calrity and pointed out in the middle of the ridiculously biased article:

"Bushist minions would doubtless say that this "collateral damage" is the unintentional by-product of actions designed to achieve strictly military objectives. What's more, American forces placed unprecedented restraints on their rules of engagement precisely to avoid civilian casulties. True enough"

Some of you really need to do some soul searching.

[marksimons]

so now you're on our backs for not protesting

igloo, morals don't work like this.

you can't ignore an argument because we weren't protesting other evils.

this is happening now.

saddam is gone.

there are still repressive regimes out there in the world.

our governments support them.

our governments supported saddam.

we must protest them, as well as the people who they have supported.

it is all part of the same fucked up situation.

when I was protesting against the war, it wasn't just this war - IT WAS ALL WAR.

it was nuclear weapons, it was the unequal trade agreements, it's the hypocritical spineless nature of our politicians.

I am only 20.

this war started when I was 19

most of saddams worst atrocities were committed before I was a teenager.

how the fuck do you figure I should have been out protesting saddam?

I'm making up for it now.

in fact, a lot of death in Iraq was caused by the sancions our countries imposed on iraq during the mid to late 90's when american and british planes enforced the no fly zone and routinley bombed shit.

do you think the sanctions hurt saddam? or do you think they hurt the weakest and most vulnerable in society...

my comparison with Bin Laden and Rumsfeld is purely statistical, no moral judgement there at all, I'm just interested in numbers of civilian deaths which each one approved personally.

I think that's a fair comparison to make...

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

so now you're on our backs for not protesting

igloo, morals don't work like this.

you can't ignore an argument because we weren't protesting other evils.

when I was protesting against the war, it wasn't just this war - IT WAS ALL WAR.

I am only 20.

this war started when I was 19

most of saddams worst atrocities were committed before I was a teenager.

how the fuck do you figure I should have been out protesting saddam?

I'm making up for it now.

in fact, a lot of death in Iraq was caused by the sancions our countries imposed on iraq during the mid to late 90's when american and british planes enforced the no fly zone and routinley bombed shit.

do you think the sanctions hurt saddam? or do you think they hurt the weakest and most vulnerable in society...

my comparison with Bin Laden and Rumsfeld is purely statistical, no moral judgement there at all, I'm just interested in numbers of civilian deaths which each one approved personally.

I think that's a fair comparison to make...

You are a fucking RETARD.....and one giant pile of BULLSHIT

"You can't ignore an arguement because we weren't protesting other evils"????? Are you fucking kidding me...

You are spewing bullshit about the entity (U.S.) that REMOVED the true evil you fucking asshole......you attempt to portray Iraqi civilians who died because of U.S. military action as the same as what Saddam Hussein did.....Any civilian death is tragic, irrespective of how it happened...but there is a distinguishing MORAL element there you fucking dispicable cunt......

And jerkoff, you can't ignore an evil (Saddam Hussein) just because other evils exist in the world too......you fucking dumb, moronic schmuck....

ANd asshole, you love to point out you are only 20, and were too young to protest Saddam......And Saddam's atrocities occurred when you were young.......SO???.........

You are quick to Google every fucking item you can about American mistakes, and like to post every fucking biased article about American foreign policy history....and love to talk about "cause and effect" and your other bullshit that you post....why are you not too young for that????

SHUT THE FUCK UP douche bag...you are so full of BULLSHIT it is unreal...you are a fraud...

And the sanctions you speak of .....BLAME SADDAM HUSSEIN ....no one else....SADDAM HUSSEIN .....stop blaming the U.S. and hold accountable those who should bear the responsibility....SADDAM HUSSEIN...

And the U.S. and British just routinely bombed shit during the 90's????....again, shut the fuck up blowhard...you have no fucking idea what you are talking about....that statement by you really proves you know NOTHING, and are just a dumb windbag

ANd jerkoff, the sanctions did hurt the most vulnerable areas of Iraqi society.....WHY?...because SADDAM HUSSEIN used the money that was supposed to go to food, medicine, hospitals, schools for palaces, weapons, and the $40 billion he has scattered acorss the world...

Comparing Rumsfeld and bin Laden is disgusting...you are a fucking deplorable cunt...

And you claim that you were too young to protest Saddam and you are making up for it now---HOW???....with an anti-American platform....what a joke......you should have been in the streets protesting Saddam Hussein (especially if your google skills were not so anti-AMerican)

ANd if you protest "WAR" period, fine......but sometimes there are things worth fighting for, and dying for...history has shown that..

And today, the major, major majority of the Iraqi people are better off today, and will be significantly be better off tomorrow because assholes like you are in the minor, minor minority....

Fuck you douche bag....you are an ignorant blowhard, and simply anti-American.....

You really proved it

[marksimons]

well perhaps not throughout the 90's, but certainly towards the end. a little over excited I got there... hard to find stuff on this... and my inclination is dropping as I sup this lovely wine...

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

ah ha.

we have it.

seems to do the job of showing that there were things carried out during the 90s.

however, I do take back my statement that they were bombing shit during the 90s.

my bad.

...

you really don't like me comparing rummy and osama.

but as I said, it's not moral, we're just looking objectively at the number of civilian deaths they have caused.

no harm in that surely... don't see how it makes me a deplorable cunt, I've not ordered any civilians dead...

...

I'm not ignoring saddam hussain, but right now he is no longer an evil in the world.

anyway I've pointed out many times before I wouldn't have objected to getting rid of saddam it's just the method that seems fucked up to me.

I mean why occupy the country with an army, that was bound to piss them off...

seems like you're getting agitated igloo, I'd reccomend a nice glass of wine to chill you out.

don't take it so personally, and what's with all the insults... I think I've been pretty restrained in my insults, apart from calling somone a racist cunt, but that wasn't you, and I think it was true...

the best arguments are the ones that don't degenerate into trading personal insults, and result in heavy drinking afterwards.

insulting a person rather than tackling their argument does not make your position stronger.

rather it looks like you're lashing out and being slightly childish about it.

and with regards to blaming saddam hussein. yes. it was his fault. he fucked up his country.

however.

our governments gave him the fucking weapons to do that.

if our leaders had not supported him, then, well, he would be no more than a local gangster.

so yes. blame saddam, but don't for a moment think that he couldn't have stayed where he was for so long without the support of france, america, britain, germany, russia and china - at various stages.

accessories to murder?

guess so...

I for one would love to see the british ministers and companies who sold weapons to saddam, knowing full well what he was like, in the dock of the international criminal court.

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

well perhaps not throughout the 90's, but certainly towards the end. a little over excited I got there... hard to find stuff on this... and my inclination is dropping as I sup this lovely wine...

however, I do take back my statement that they were bombing shit during the 90s.

my bad.

...

you really don't like me comparing rummy and osama.

but as I said, it's not moral, we're just looking objectively at the number of civilian deaths they have caused.

no harm in that surely... don't see how it makes me a deplorable cunt, I've not ordered any civilians dead...

...

I'm not ignoring saddam hussain, but right now he is no longer an evil in the world.

anyway I've pointed out many times before I wouldn't have objected to getting rid of saddam it's just the method that seems fucked up to me.

I mean why occupy the country with an army, that was bound to piss them off...

seems like you're getting agitated igloo, I'd reccomend a nice glass of wine to chill you out.

don't take it so personally, and what's with all the insults... I think I've been pretty restrained in my insults, apart from calling somone a racist cunt, but that wasn't you, and I think it was true...

the best arguments are the ones that don't degenerate into trading personal insults, and result in heavy drinking afterwards.

insulting a person rather than tackling their argument does not make your position stronger.

rather it looks like you're lashing out and being slightly childish about it.

and with regards to blaming saddam hussein. yes. it was his fault. he fucked up his country.

however.

our governments gave him the fucking weapons to do that.

if our leaders had not supported him, then, well, he would be no more than a local gangster.

so yes. blame saddam, but don't for a moment think that he couldn't have stayed where he was for so long without the support of france, america, britain, germany, russia and china - at various stages.

accessories to murder?

guess so...

I for one would love to see the british ministers and companies who sold weapons to saddam, knowing full well what he was like, in the dock of the international criminal court.

..I just had some drinks and some other "stuff"...so, not sure if I can write...

1- I stand by my comment and insult with respects to you comparing Rumsfeld and Bin Laden

2-Glad you you don't "OBJECT" to getting rid of Hussein

...but thank God someone finally took a leadership role and did it...

And with respects to you objecting to the method....I suggest you do some research and analysis. I am confident you will find that this invasion was the ONLY method left to get rid of Hussein.

And who (Iraqi's) is pissed off that the U.S. is a current occupying force???...I suggest you get your facts straight...the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are happy for their liberation, and do not want the U.S. to leave until the country is on its feet...THIS IS A FACT...the only ones pissed off are the remaining loyalists who realize they have no future...unfortunately, as small as they are, they are still causing death and destruction, and getting the focus of the agenda driven media

You are woefully ignorant and ill-informed with respects to this issue.

3-You are correct. Hurling insults does diminish one's arguement and position, but like I have stated a hundred times, I find it personally insulting when anti-Americanism and complete bullshit is spewed. If I lash out, so be it. If I choose to mix in some counter-insults when tackling anti-Americanism and bullshit, so be it. If you find it childish, so be it.

4-I agree and disagree with your comments about Hussein and Western govt support. But that is for another day. Can't do it now.

[pattbateman]

did anyone remember that this is a war?????

shit happens in war

how quickly we all forget

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

did anyone remember that this is a war?????

shit happens in war

how quickly we all forget

The armchair warriors who directed the American-led conquest of Iraq would like us to believe that the estimated 10,000 innocent civilians who died in the invasion were simply unfortunate, inadvertant, unavoidable, accidental victims of a just and noble action. No one wanted these innocent people to die. Surely no American leader ever knowingly ordered a mission with the certain knowledge that innocent people were going to be killed by it. These deaths just happened; no one is to blame for them.

That's what the armchair warriors tell the world -- and themselves too, no doubt, when they look into the mirror every morning. But like almost every other statement issued by the Bush Regime on the subject of Iraq, this comforting fairytale is a cynical, blood-soaked lie.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

You are right jamirolost...

The U.S. and their extremist leaders went into Iraq with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible, and made absolutely no effort to avoid civilian casualties....this was a key part of theri strategy

Interesting that you tell me that when I hurl insults, it detracts from any points I make...

Perhaps you should apply the same logic to you and your clueless pals.....Every time you unconditionally support every pile of bullshit, absurd conspiracy theory, illogical motive, moronic stances, and unfounded jibbersish, it detracts from the times you make valid points (which is rare anyway).....

Morons.......oops, that insult will detract from the point I made...that you are morons