need to believe something else
The doubts and inconsistencies in the story are patent from the quote you linked:
According to Karpinski, Miller told her that the prison would thenceforth be dedicated to gathering intel. (Miller says he simply recommended that detention and intelligence commands be integrated.)
Karpinski, who is now trying to save her ass, says something and Miller says something else. Somebody is obviously lying. Ergo, there is an element of doubt injected into a very important part of the the analysis.
And what in Heaven's name is the fact that Rumsfeld was critical of the intelligence-gathering process in Iraq have to do with his personal culpability for the abuses? Even Hersh recognizes this point because he does not (though he tries) directly accuse Rumsfeld of being responsible.
You, however, have your mind made up. I don't. I want to hear facts, testimony, see documents if any exist, and evaluate motives before I take the extraordinary position that Rumsfeld is responsible. Why? Because accusing an Secretary of Defense (for anyone, for that matter) of this type of thing on such presently flimsy grounds is highly irresponsible.
Does it merit looking into? Absolutely.
Does it merit looking into fairly? We seem to disagree on this basic point.
Need to believe?? Oh, brother, gimme a break. Your mindset requires you to believe the worst at all times, facts be damned. |
