“Doesn’t this mean Rumsfeld lied under oath?”

So asks Republican pundit and former Bush attack dog Andrew Sullivan, as he contemplates new evidence that Rumsfeld knew about plans to use attack dogs as a torture device (call it what you will — torture is torture) at Guantanamo. They were never used there, but they were at Abu Ghraib.

Impeachment hearings, anyone?

The article Sullivan points to proves what most of us have known all along: Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez is a liar, and he’s probably toast.

But wait, that’s not all. Today Mark Kleiman points to an article in a conservative British paper indicating the investigations will become a whole lot worse over the next few days. Documents are about to come out that show the abuse was approved at “the very highest levels.” Bad apples indeed. Heh.

The Discussion: 2 Comments

Fine catch and link. I’m eager for facts to emerge in the papers about this. There have been whispers about it the past couple of weeks.

June 13, 2004 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

Doesn’t the American people understand, while Rumsfeld says he takes responbility, i can see how it is possible while he is still sitting in pentagon directing the orders of Gunatanamo.

June 14, 2004 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.