« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gen. Sanchez: My Soldiers Were "Abandoned On The Battlefield"
As we told you yesterday, General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, called Sunday night for a truth commission to investigate torture, and declared that the practice never produced actionable intelligence.
And last night, speaking to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Sanchez repeated his call for the commission. He added that, in the aftermath of the effort, "we must have all options open, from commendation to prosecution," so that we can "move forward and regain the moral high ground that we have lost."
But he also made what appeared to be a more startling claim, at least considering its source. Sanchez said that he was speaking out in order to "ensure that the future leaders of America clearly understand the failures that occurred, so that our soldiers are never abandoned on the battlefield again like mine were."
Watch:
Was Sanchez saying that the soldiers tried for abuses at Abu Ghraib were "abandoned" by civilian leaders like President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, who blamed the scandal on "a few bad apples," while denying what we now know -- that the roots of the abuse lay in policies approved at high levels of the administration? If so, that would be a pretty explosive allegation coming from the top commander of our Iraq forces at the time.
Olbermann didn't follow up, so Sanchez's implication isn't totally clear. But we're hoping to ask him ourselves today, so we'll keep you posted.
Josh
Zachary
I'm confused. Abandoning our soldiers on the battlefield is usually meant to refer to the efforts of anti-war people, like me. That was my initial thought when reading the headline on this. But, no question, Bush abandoned the soldiers who were prosecuted for Abu Ghraib, knowing full well that he was doing so to protect his own butt. I hope this gets a big play in the MSM, but of course it won't. Instead, the TV newsreaders will call for an expert opinion from...turdblossom, if they mention it at all.
June 2, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "Truth Commission" is even more urgently needed:
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/make-it-happen/
June 2, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the question is who do I trust most, the Cheney Bush cabal or General Ricardo Sanchez, I for sure would go with the General. As a life long Republican, I feel totally abandoned by the party of my youth. General Sanchez is to be complimented for his straightforward comments about his unit's service and how the Washington crowd treated them. And I for one can conceive of the torture crowd pushing the sort of abuse that happened in POW prisons in Iraq. The seemed so shocking but then came Gitmo and those monstrous pictures from that Iraq prison seemed light weight by comparison although still illegal.
June 3, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Lt. Gen. Sanchez personally gave the order to use unmuzzled dogs against Abu Ghraib inmates. He also approved the use of temperature extremes, sleep-cycle reversal, and bread-and-water diets. These tactics were selected based on advice he sought from the commanders of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. And this was after he had approved even harsher interrogation tactics (which were subsequently rescinded), such as: confiscating prisoners' religious items, manipulating their light exposure, and posing as citizens of a country known for inhumane treatment of prisoners (oh, the irony)."
http://www.nndb.com/people/937/000049790/
June 3, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly: Sanchez didn't speak up when it mattered -- until it mattered to him that his own ass is at risk.
June 3, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the show last night and I was yelling at the screen for Olbermann to ask Sanchez what he meant by that. I interpreted it to mean the soldiers at Abu Ghraib.
June 2, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what it means to me, I think it's clear enough, actually.
Nice avatar!
June 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Janice Karpinski went on Olbermann a month or so ago, and at least stood up for the people under her command -- despite their egregious behavior, despite the harm they did to America -- at least she showed 'leadership' in the sense that she gave a damn about what happened to the people who'd served under her.
What Lynndie England, Charles Grainger, and the rest did was appalling. But not one of them look like genuine leaders, and it sure appears that they all thought they were 'following **unwritten, unspoken** orders'. So who gave those orders? We all need some answers.
Good for Sanchez; that took guts.
More, please.
June 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. And you're so right: Them? Leaders? Come on!
June 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One conservative blog, and I suspect more, find equivalency between the Till murder and the murder of the soldier at the recruiting station in Oklahoma: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023702.php
They blame anti-soldier rhetoric on the left. I don't know what rhetoric they're referring to. I've never seen a liberal call for the death of soldiers like conservatives for years have attacked Tiller. Besides, we warned repeatedly that using torture would endanger our own troops. If they weren't convinced by the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, will a killing in Oklahoma finally convince them?
June 2, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we know there was some Islamic influence on that incident now....
June 2, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any word yet if there was any NRA influence?
(Aside from all the lobbying to make sure that SKS rifles are still legal.)
June 3, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a highly questionable thing for Sanchez to say. I think he is pandering to what he perceives is the current mood.
Please do report on his clarification.
I don't consider AG to be "the battlefield". But what the Levin report suggests is that at least one unnamed (blacked out) commander in Iraq passively refused to authorize interrogation procedures over and over again in 2003. And further, conflicting directions were given in short sequence. For example: In Sept 2003 something was approved, but then something else was approved in Oct. 2003. Requests for clarification were sent up the chain of command but apparently nobody "up there" wanted to touch the requests.
However, none of that justifies obvious violations of Geneva etc.
June 2, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually... it could include the battlefield considering how poorly our soldiers were supported on the field by privately run canteens/supply chains and the like (not enough food, water...). Add in not getting proper body armor, vehicles w/o proper undercarriage armor, ammunition supply shortages, lackluster treatment upon coming home (Walter Reed, denial or slow approval of benefits), chronic understaffing led primarily by Rumsfeld's desire to staff the whole of Iraq w/ a force size at most 1/3 that actually requested by Vietnam veteran, General Shinseki. I'm sure the list could go on... Heck, add in prolonged deployments w/o a draft...
June 2, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abandoned soldiers? It is Vietnam & Lt. Calley all over again. What Calley did was also appalling, but the chain was broken & he became the scapegoat. If we do not know & learn from our history, we are destined to repeat mistakes over and over again.
As far as I am concerned the entire shrub administration was corrupt. There were lies, deceptions, misdirections, ignorance & crimes that started before the war and continue to today. I feel such frustration over the whole thing. Those people did so much harm to this country, I wonder if we will ever claw our way out.
If a Truth Commission was really instituted, the reams of paper should fill an aircraft carrier.
June 2, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cally was an unapologetic racist. And Nixon -- and the military -- gave him a pass.
June 3, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann didn't follow up because his interviewing skills are quite low. It's too bad that Sanchez was not on Rachel Maddow's show, in this particular case.
June 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just finishing up Mayer's The Dark Side. How do I feel ? I'm disgusted to be an American, wondering why the lawyers in the OLC, the politicians and lawyers in the White House and VP's office, along with the screwballs in the CIA's special torture units, etc., haven't already gotten their free trip to the Hague. I spent 7 1/2 years in the US Navy and I cannot begin to express how angry I am at what these cretins in the Bush administration did to the honor and high standards of the great majority in the US Military and the UCMJ. If you haven't read the book, take the time. Thanks to Sanchez for having the guts to speak out against the unspeakable.
June 3, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lt. Gen. Sanchez personally gave the order to use unmuzzled dogs against Abu Ghraib inmates. He also approved the use of temperature extremes, sleep-cycle reversal, and bread-and-water diets. These tactics were selected based on advice he sought from the commanders of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. And this was after he had approved even harsher interrogation tactics (which were subsequently rescinded), such as: confiscating prisoners' religious items, manipulating their light exposure, and posing as citizens of a country known for inhumane treatment of prisoners (oh, the irony)."
http://www.nndb.com/people/937/000049790/
Guts? Yeah: it takes courage to seek to save one's own ass.
He said NOTHING when it most mattered: when the tortures were being imposed. He obeyed -- and gave -- illegal orders concerning same, when instead, were he that he now presents himself as being, he should have resigned and spoken out.
Taguba deserves respect. Alberto Gonzales deserves respect. Kapinski deserves respect (and vindication). I can't think of anyone else in the military chain of command who deserves other than prosecution, beginning with Gen. "Gitmoize" Miller.
June 3, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gonzales????
June 4, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
More every day, it seems that those WANTING a truth commission are people "in the know."
It's not just us libs out here in lalaland, but people in the Bush administration, who were in the middle of the whole intrigue, seem to be certain that an investigation would uncover many sordid truths.
Ashcroft might not like the prospect, but his religious beliefs would not allow him to fudge his answers under oath. He's one of the best potential keys to unlocking the big-lie box.
As long as he doesn't lie.
June 5, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink