Bush Nominates General Who Oversaw Guantanamo Prison To Be Top NATO Commander
Bush Nominates General Who Oversaw Guantanamo Prison To Be Top NATO Commander
Last week President Bush nominated U.S. Army Gen. Bantz Craddock to be NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, the same position formerly held by Gen. Wesley Clark. Craddock currently oversees the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and was formerly chief military assistant to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
While overseeing Guantanamo, Craddock has fiercly defended the prison’s interrogation practices and has been criticized for failing to take action against the abuses there. Some highlights:
Craddock falsely insisted that a “significant number” of detainees at Guantanamo Bay were members of al-Qaeda. In Mar. 2005, Craddock said that a significant number of Guantanamo detainees “are highly trained, dangerous members of al-Qaida, its related terrorist networks, and the former Taliban regime.” In reality, only around eight percent of the detainees fought for al Qaeda and 16 percent for the Taliban.
Craddock refused to reprimand Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller for abuse and torture of detainee Mohammad al-Qahtan. Miller, who “commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib, was accused of failing to properly supervise Qahtani’s interrogation plan and was recommended for reprimand by investigators.” Craddock refused to follow the investigators’ recommendation, justifying his decision by saying the interrogation “led to breaking al-Qahtani’s resistance and to solid intelligence gains.”
Craddock joked about the detainee hunger strike, saying the prisoners had “choices” in feeding tube color, flavor of lozenges. In Feb. 2006, Craddock “joked that at least hunger strikers got to choose the color of their feeding tube (yellow was a favorite), and the flavor of the lozenges used to soothe thoats irritated by the feeding tubes. ‘Look, they get choices,’ Craddock said at the time. ‘And that’s part of the problem.’”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
50 Responses to “Bush Nominates General Who Oversaw Guantanamo Prison To Be Top NATO Commander”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dumbya is as dumbya does.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pmFirst you dirty him up real good, then he is your boy for life.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmNext:
Bush will try to use the NATO even for wipe his ass, as he is trying with the UN and John Bolton.
Gee, those people doesn’t realize that the rest of the world isn’t their servants.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmBy the time Bush is out of office there will be no people of integrity in a postition of power. Craddock is a disgrace to the uniform he wears.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmIf Bush’s poll numbers keep dropping and he keeps putting cronies into government positions, pretty soon every one of his supporters will be part of his administration. I think the 4.9% unemployment number refers to how many of these supporters have not yet been nominated by Bush for government positions.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmHow much more of this shit is it going to take before Americans put down their remotes and pick up their torches and pitchforks?
July 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pmHold on now. There might be hope. This nomination needs Senate approval. Just kidding the slime is in.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmTrue example of how to get promoted in the US. All you have to do is follow the idiot and torture kill prisoners and your in. Now if that action was wrong you have to protect the President by taking the fall. Look for the assistant DOJ official who said Bush is always right to be the next Attorney General as Gonzales will have to take the fall for the criminal law of torture, secret prisons and spying illegally. What a great example of American values shown by Bush Americans must be proud to know that cursing , lying, stealing and using God’s name for Satan’s work is the way to teach your children. The bible isn’t needed any more as Bush has replaced it with his laws. Oh and the church will follow Bush as long as he keeps giving them money from the US Treasury.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#6
July 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmDude - you need to lighten up! Things are not as bad you and your liberal friends in the MSM think they are. I can empathize with you though. Conservatives have felt the same way in the past but then we did something about it. The problem with your side though, is that liberalism is dead. You are not attracting new members to the movement which means that as long as you control the direction of the democratic party, Republicans are going to stay in power.
Keep on dreaming Randy. It is good to have a creative imagination.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#9,
July 17th, 2006 at 2:30 pmAnd the fact your boy king enjoys the lowest ratings
a ‘war time’ president has ever had certainly supports
your rant.
Randy, mommy’s calling…time for your nap. Nitey-nite.
#9
Perfect example of delusions of grandeur. Liberalism is dead….very funny.
Anyway, this guy is going to be NATOs commander just at the time we are trying to place “defensive” missle bases in Eastern Europe. There has been a lot of resistance to these going in but our new “friends” in E. Europe that are or will be inducted into NATO will be strong-armed into accepting these on their soil by Bantz “Over” Craddok. A dirty mission for a dirty fella.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pmJust remember, Congress is going into their summer hiatus and Bush will probably use the recess appointment theory. Is there no end to this mad man’s intention to ruin America?
July 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pmMore hardline stuff. Boy is Bush macho and effective!
Cue the reporter laughtrack from Putin trashing.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmThis is a gift. Everyone should be ecstatic. If the Hill Dems get a coordinated message on this, it will be an example of everything working against the Republicans right now: corruption, cronyism, mismanagement of the war(s). It will allow us to repeat message points over, and over, and over, and over and it will further galvanize the left-leaning interest groups.
This was ridiculously stupid on Bush’s part.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pmGod almighty!
In this administration, if you’re a criminal, an incompetent screw up, or a sadistic torturer of human beings, you get promoted.
If you’re an honest decent person with a soul, you get cut from the team.
Bush is an enemy to all America stands for.
He is an enemy to freedom.
He is an enemy to democracy.
He is an enemy to ever good person on this planet, everywhere.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pmPart of Bush’s sweeping “Crime to Law” reform movement.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pmThe incredible arrogance of this and other appointments is telling. A sign that Bush is sure that nothing will keep them from maintaining their power hold on the government. If so, this arrogance could only be born from the fore-knowledge that they again plan to either 1) steal the election again or 2) declare martial law, suspend elections and civil rights and fullfill their dream of Nazi America.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pmFor the last time, no one “stole” any elections. When are you people going to give that up? Besides going to the “kook” leftist/liberal websites, there is no proof that this ever occurred. If it did, I can assure you that someone would have acted upon it. I live in Ohio and I saw no evidence of election fraud first-hand. But as evidenced in Mexico, two weeks, when the left doesn’t get what they want, the first thing they do and claim the election was stolen. I wonder what would have happened had Nixon done the same in 1960?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmBTW, Ed Schultz is a pompous asshole
July 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmFor the last time. Nobody here believes a word you say Randy.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIt is a FACT that precents with predominantly white GOP voters had PLENTY of voting machines. It is a FACT that predominately black democratic leaning precents had a sever shortage of voting machines. It is a FACT that Blackwell was responsible for the election - and it is ALSO a fact that Blackwell is a REpUBLICAN. It is also a FACT that the vast majority of CONFIRMED descrepencies in the vote count favored Bush. It also a FACT that never NEVER has the exit polls been so WRONG. It is a fact that statisticians with no political ax to grind - gave near impossible odds for this to
occur. It is a FACT that the “liberal” media is NOT “liberal” at all - and therefore NOT interested in pursueing the truth. The Toledo Blade however did publish much of what I have written above. It is also a fact that Randy is a hypocrite and will not admit that had the above been reversed in favor of Kerry - Randy would be squalling like the fascist pig that he is.
of course Bush would nominate Gen. Bantz Craddock - no surprise here.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pmcaption contest:
July 17th, 2006 at 4:05 pm“they’re all bad guys, we sanitize the tubes before we ram them down their throats and they do choose the color of their tubes. same with the flashlights that go us their asses. er…what else?….oh yes, jazzy hands!”
Bantz Craddock? Sounds like a character that Leslie Nielsen would play.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmOk Spud Boy,
If you don’t want to accept reality, that’s fine by me. But doesn’t it seem strange that if the election, as nostrafarious claims, were stolen in 2000 and again in 2004, that there wouldn’t be some investigation? So while nobody here believes a word I say, just think about it for a minute with a clear head for a change. I am 100% confident that you will conclude that Bush did not steal either election.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmand who would lead the investigation? Blackwell? Gonzalez? 4th estate?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pmyou are the one not in reality. Had Blackwell been a Dem, and Ohio had gone to
Kerry despite exit polls indicating Bush - better believe there would have been an investigation.
#22 and #26
http://dir.salon.com/ story/ tech/ feature/ 2004/ 11/ 10/ voting/ index.html?pn=2
Enough said.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#26
You want an investigation? I say, “Bring it on!”
July 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#26
What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue? You know I’m right and thats why you have nothing to say.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:34 pmThe salon piece does not equate to “Enough said”. I guess one reads what one wants. “the unconscionably long lines at the polls” - what a happy coincidence it occured in democratic districts. Very convenient.
Also regarding exit polls “It’s a good question, and at the moment, there’s no answer”
Exit polls were used to force a recount in Ukraine (apparently accurate enough for right wing pundits in that case).
anything but a slam dunk Randy dude.
as for bring it on, indeed.
From the salon article:
This is not to say that nothing went wrong on Election Day. The Election Incident Reporting System shows that thousands of voters experienced registration problems such as the mysterious disappearance of their names from the voting rolls. In addition, David Dill points out that all over the country, voting machines broke down — the most frequent mechanical problem seen on Election Day. Another frequent complaint: Very often, voters would attempt to select one candidate on a voting machine and for some mysterious, as yet undetermined reason, the candidate’s opponent will have been selected. These errors, and many more, certainly contributed to one of the most pernicious problems seen on Election Day, the unconscionably long lines at the polls
July 17th, 2006 at 4:34 pmTo many Democrats, the most important bit of evidence pointing to a Kerry win is the exit polling data on Election Day. Although news agencies did not report the Election Day polls during the day, and no networks used the polls to call the race in close swing states, the polls, which were conducted by a consortium of news agencies called the National Election Pool, were leaked all over the Web. Those leaks seemed to show Kerry winning. And how could the polls have been so spectacularly wrong? Democrats wonder.
It’s a good question, and at the moment, there’s no answer, says Joe Lenski, who led the exit polling at Edison/Mitofsky Research, the firm that conduced the survey for the media. But Lenski says it’s absurd to conclude from the surveys that the actual count is off. An exit poll is a survey, and surveys can fail.
Last year Chimpy and his organgrinders celebrated the ‘cedar revolution’ that strengthened a fragile democracy against Syrian influence. One year later and they are happy to see Israel bomb that democracy back into civil war - heckuvajob Chimpy - great commitment to that Lebanese democracy there.
Oh and who started the kidnapping in the first place? Israel - BBC 24 June 2006
July 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pmtouche…
Response to Salon Magazine
by Ron Baiman
June 6, 2006
Dear Editor:
In his June 2, 2006 Salon article “Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Noâ€, Farhad Manjoo claims to have “thoroughly debunked†a June 15, 2006 article in Rolling Stone by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Did Bush Steal the 2004 Electionâ€.
As one of the (applied) statisticians cited in Kennedy’s article, I find that Manjoo’s “debunking†is either superficial spin that is easily refuted by adding more detail to Kennedy’s already very long piece, or simply factually erroneous. I will focus on the Manjoo points that relate to official return and exit poll data - my particular area of expertise.
a) Making the point that voters sometimes do vote more often for a “down ticket†candidate is hardly a “rebuttal†of the 12 County Ellen Connally “anomalyâ€. First of all this was not a normal election but rather one of the hardest fought Presidential races in recent history in a key battleground state. Moreover, Connally was an under-funded and largely unknown African American, liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-death penalty, woman from Cleveland, and all of these counties are far from Cleveland. But even if we disregard this, anybody who wishes to check the numbers posted on the Secretary of State of Ohio’s official website will find that: a) nine out of only 14 counties (out of a total of 88 counties in Ohio) where Bush did abnormally well (over 43% better) relative to Moyer (the Republican Supreme Court nominee) just happen to be part of the same 12 counties where Kerry inexplicably did worse than Connally, b) this was not a result of voters in these counties switching from Moyer to Connally as Connally’s vote is worse than the Ohio county average in all but one of these counties and Moyer’s vote is better than the county average in all but one of the 12, c) the “lost Kerry†vote of 81,599 (relative to the average Kerry/Connally ratio) just happens to be just about equal to the “excess Bush†vote of 75,766 (relative to the average Bush/Moyer average in the 12 counties), and d) when one looks at the county by county pattern of “lost†Kerry votes to “excess†Bush votes, they match almost perfectly in their orders of magnitude – see the table below:
As Kennedy notes such an approximately 80,000 vote shift from Kerry to Bush would have given Bush an additional 160,000 votes, more than enough to steal an election which Bush won by about 119,000 votes. In other words, just this one “anomaly†is enough to support a “stolen election†hypothesis and I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible explanation of this set a)-d) of remarkable statistical “coincidences†as reflecting anything other than a pattern of vote shifting!
b) Manjoo’s claims that exit polls are not always accurate and that Mitfosky has an “explanation†for the large discrepancies (that he acknowledges were both highly significant statistically and the largest since 1988 in the January report) are both irrelevant when one considers the pattern of the exit poll discrepancy in Ohio – see graph below:
These are “within-precinct discrepancies†or ((Kerry -Bush Official Vote) minus (Kerry – Bush Exit Poll shares)) for each of the 49 precincts for which exit polls were taken in Ohio based on data released by the Election Science Institute in a report in which Mitofsky is listed as an “assisting authorâ€. (Note that there are not 49 bars as someprecincts have the same official Kerry vote share so that the bar is an average WPD.) Negative WPD reflects large Kerry exit poll “overstatements†relative to official vote counts. Note that almost all of the discrepancies are negative (against Kerry). In fact, as Kennedy reports, 20 of the 22 statistically significant discrepancies (large enough so that they could not plausibly be the result of random sampling error) are against Kerry. But even more striking is the pattern. On the right side in “high Kerry†precincts (above 57% official vote count – right of the red vertical line) there is a more or less random pattern of Bush (positive) and Kerry (negative) discrepancies, whereas on the left side (below 57% official Kerry vote – left of red line) almost all of the discrepancies (and all of the statistically significant discrepancies) go against Kerry. Moreover the precincts on the left are densely clustered whereas they are more dispersed on the right.
This strikingly non-uniform pattern cannot be explained by either large but “unbiased†(not one-sided) exit poll discrepancies – the pattern on the right, or by a “reluctant Bush voter response to the exit Poll†(“rBr†- Mitofsky’s hypothetical explanation) as this would not even produce the pattern on the left, not to mention the un-biased discrepancy on the right. Those who have been following the 2004 exit poll debate know that rBr would produce a “U†shaped pattern of discrepancies that are larger in more competitive precincts and taper off to nearly zero in highly partisan precincts. There is no such pattern on the left of the graph. But the pattern displayed is perfectly consistent with “vote shifting†from Kerry to Bush that would “move†precincts by their official vote count to the left thus producing large negative Kerry WPD and much smaller Bush WPD, and a clustering of precincts on the left. In fact Manjoo’s (or Lindeman’s) calculations of overall exit poll response averages are simply mathematically wrong, as they don’t take into account the larger proportion of Kerry or Bush voters in the “high Kerry†or “high Bush†precincts respectively – for accurate exit poll response rate estimates, and an explanation of why Mitofsky’s data contradicts his own “rBr†hypothetical see NEDA reports.
c) Manjoo’s claim that Mitofsky’s “rBr†hypothetical has not been decisively disproved is bunk. We applied an “optimal†(in the sense that this explained the WPD in more precincts than any other level of “rBrâ€) 59% to 50% excess Kerry to Bush voter completion rate to the Ohio data and found that 30% of Ohio’s exit polled precincts still had significant discrepancy, that these were still overwhelmingly against Kerry (11 out of 15) resulting in a 4.3% WPD against Kerry that was still more than double Bush’s 2.1% margin of victory in Ohio – see NEDA January report.
d) Finally, Manjoo’s claim that WPD’s in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico were “not outside the margin of error†depends on how one calculates the “margin of errorâ€. In particular, based upon a very liberal 30% “cluster factor†increase in the margin of error proposed (after the election) by Mitfosky, (and a doubling of the publicly posted sample size recently revealed by Mitofsky – see Baiman June 5, 2006 AAPOR presentation Free Press 6/5/06 posting) there was only about a 1 in 1,929 chance for the approximately 6.8% (weighted statewide) WPD in Ohio. This is well over any reasonable margin of error (typically set at about 1 in 20). Moreover, even using this very liberal margin of error, the odds of the Kerry exit poll discrepancies being as large as they were in the three key battle ground states of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania simultaneously (and not just any random three states) is an impossible 1 in 133,000 (see Baiman Ohio Court Challenge affidavit).
In short Manjoo’s “debunking†of the official vote and exit poll analysis parts of he Kennedy article is superficial and erroneous nonsense. Moreover, we have been through this with Manjoo and many of the people that he cites before. He and they either do not understand the relevant statistics and mathematics of rigorous exit poll analysis and should not be reporting or prognosticating on this topic, or they simply refuse to accept their errors of interpretation and understanding.
Sincerely,
July 17th, 2006 at 4:37 pmRon Baiman, Ph.D.
Loyola University Chicago
Vice President NEDA
In a normal situation yes. But, the repluicans have the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Therefore, there won’t be an investigation into anything. You bastards are free to rape and pilage the US of A until we take control of one of the three branches.
Why hasn’t Phase II of the investigation into the intelligence that lead us been completed?
Why are there so many holes in the 9/11 comission report?
Why is there no investigations into any of Bush’s illegal spying programs?
I live in reality and know why there aren’t any. You live in a fantasy land if you think liberalism is dead. You can wake up and face reality, but I am living it.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pmthe answer to your questions Spudge_Boy is BECAUSE they control all branches of government, but if course you knew that. And EVEN if Bush is cought getting a blow job from Jeff Gannon in the oval office NOTHING will happen. That is why I was despaired when they took control of it all. One party rule is never good - no matter the party.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:49 pmrandyisanahole,
You are absolutely correct. And Randy knows it. He is just pretending that it isn’t true.
America will nto be the same until we have two party rule again.
Because unlike Randy and the other right wing trolls here think. I DO NOT want the democrats to take all three branches. For me one party rule is NOT a good thing. Dems or Repubs. Neither one should rule all three branches.
Also, Randy is under the impression that I am a Democrat, which I am not. I don’t think the Democrats in Washington, ecluding a few are really Democrats. The same goes for Republicans. There are very few politicians that are looking out for the best interest of the country.
The problem is most republicans are of the “We have to win at all costs” mind set. This isn’t about whether Dems or Repubs are right or wrong it is about what is best for the country and one party rule is not good for the country.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pmBut doesn’t it seem strange that if the election, as nostrafarious claims, were stolen in 2000 and again in 2004, that there wouldn’t be some investigation?
Separately, had Gore been appointed President in 2000, and had Kerry won the presidency in 2004 & had exit polls shown Bush the winner & and had we had numerous reports of Kerry’s name being selected when voters chose Bush, then you can bet your a*s that we would have had investigations, Randy. The republican controlled Congress wouldn’t have rested until a republican had been inserted into the White House. You are a fool if you think otherwise.
And speaking of elections, Randy, go check out Bush’s bio on the WH web site. Funny that even they don’t think Bush was elected in 2000, as there is no mention of that small detail; instead they jump straight to the date of his inauguration.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:59 pmTypical Clueless George appointment.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:14 pmAs for Randy, he is hopeless as well as clueless — sorta fits right in with Uncurious George, the monkey in the White House.
Spudge, you and randyisanahole do a fine job of knocking down Randy’s stupid arguments (factless as they are) but I think he is a waste of time.
He is part of the 29% blind and ignoramus-like lemmings who will follow Bush into hell.
I am registered Repug, I was taken in by Reagan. I use it to vote in primaries for the lesser of two evils and in the general - for dems (which I feel is definately the lesser of two evils). I have been considering going independent, but is is instructive to read the tripe sent to me by the republican congress. I tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative - the corperate fascist in washington are neither. I live in california - and since the assembly is Democratic - I will probably vote for Arnold, gridlock often gives in two results that often satisfys no one - but at least no one “wins” at the expense of the other. Often compromise is reached, and there are only winners. Now we are under total control of the Party of Rich, and we all lose cause as proven greed has no limits.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pmCaption Contest!
#1
Upon returning from a restroom break, Gen. Bantz Craddock held up his hands and declared, “Yes, I washed my hands. Want to smell them?”
#2
“Look Ma! No hands!”
#3
“High Fives to everyone in this room if I am approved!”
#4
“There were no towels in the restroom, so excuse me while my hands air dry.”
July 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pmSo will Republicans use this as a wedge issue if the Democrats block the nom?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pmMaybe that’s the reason.
I guess I just don’t want to believe bush would keep up this behavior of crappy nominations. Next thing you know, he’ll give George Tenet a medal.
W places sychophants in these positions. The ability to lie and to push the envelope of legality is also higly prized. A criminal background is a definate plus. Thus you get the kind of nominees you see. I do not think Dems will even bother to try to block this guy, seriously.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pmFor the last time. Nobody here believes a word you say Randy.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — July 17, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
——————–
Oh,I don’t know.He’s close to convincing me to reject my foolish liberal notions…
…kidding!
He only reinforces my deeply-held political/spiritual philosophy.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:45 pmCaption Contest!
#1
Upon returning from a restroom break, Gen. Bantz Craddock held up his hands and declared, “Yes, I washed my hands. Want to smell them?â€
#2
“Look Ma! No hands!â€
#3
“High Fives to everyone in this room if I am approved!â€
#4
“There were no towels in the restroom, so excuse me while my hands air dry.â€
Comment by WC
—————
Funny stuff,WC.
How’s this one;”See– no blood on my hands!”
July 17th, 2006 at 9:56 pmOh wow, both my senators will vote for him.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:22 pmIt is always the goofy looking ones who end up being the scariest of all. But it is because of how stupid they look, that they end up getting away with murder. The average person just can’t imagine them (looking like they do) doing any such thing.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:26 amMaybe Bush wants this General to torture people in Europe now? I suppose the Bush lover trolls might suggest torture for the French > lol.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:04 amAnd in related news, the Navy named General Craddock’s senior enlisted advisor and Navy corpsman the new MCPON, master chief petty officer of the Navy. Clearly, this administration and this military view Gitmo as an unequivocal success and sufficiently praiseworthy to underscore magnificent military careers.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:57 amWow!! I can’t believe it…the entire worldwide intelligence community has been trying to figure out who these guys are at Guantanamo since the stories they tell are ALWAYS accurate and they wouldn’t possibly lie. They’re all innocent!! Amazing. Caught wandering around a battlefield so remote, they were just looking for the burning bush, or the Muslim equivalent.
You people are amazingly stupid. I’m thankful every day that you’re such a small percentage of the population and you only exist in the media.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:23 am[…] Think Progress […]
July 18th, 2006 at 5:37 pm[…] Präsident Bush ihn zum SACEUR nominierte, war Craddock für das Folterlager Guantanamo verantwortlich. Dort behauptete Craddock ungeachtet der Tatsachen, dass das Lager praktisch voller […]
March 20th, 2007 at 3:51 am