Locomotive Mule

“I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.” President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001 (quoted by Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies)

Chaos in Washington

At the same time, his administration is beginning to fragment under him. The State Department is leaking information like a sieve meant to undermine the neocons over at the Pentagon; the military is in a state of dissension over the Pentagon civilians; officials at the CIA is panicking over its systematic torture policies; both Secretary of State Powell (the man who always believed you shouldn’t enter a war without an “exit strategy") and CPA head Bremer have been running up the flagpole pathetic statements indicating that if some as-yet-undetermined Iraqi government were ever foolish enough to ask us to leave, why, improbable as that might be, we just might have to honor their wishes – and Pentagon officials (and the President) have been shooting the suggestion down. In short, the chaos in Iraq is spreading to Washington. Expect soon to see gridlock inside the beltway – and keep in mind that out there somewhere are things-waiting-to-happen: the Valerie Plame grand jury, various Supreme Court decisions, the 9/11 commission report, and who knows what else. Call me Ishmael, but I think this ship of state might just be leaking a tad much. Let’s see who jumps (or is pushed) overboard first.

To put the matter in a larger context, for over two years, while the Bush administration set up a global mini-gulag largely organized around the hundreds of military bases we’ve scattered across the globe, our media remained remarkably silent. Almost all darkness, no spotlights. Most of the time they simply looked the other way.

In fact, our major papers didn’t move even when they were handed some of this information on a platter. As we learned this week thanks to Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher magazine on-line (Where Was Press When First Iraq Prison Allegations Arose?), Pulitzer-Prize winning AP correspondent Charles J. Hanley did a series of stories from Iraq that culminated last November in an account of the experiences of six detainees at Abu Ghraib and two other American prisons). It included some of the charges of mistreatment that now rivet Americans, and yet it was picked up by not a single major paper in this country, nor did any of them, as far as he can tell, follow up on the piece.

As more and more comes out, I’m left with less and less to say.

Unfortunately, as goes the administration, so goes my country.
Damn.

DOD to Berg Family: Screw You

From CNN.com:

“Berg’s body arrived Wednesday at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. His parents had requested permission to be at the base when the coffin arrived, but that request was denied. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said Thursday that refusal came from the Department of Defense.”

When it became known that “more photos and videos” existed, the White House kept saying that “the Pentagon is studying” the question of releasing them. It seemed reasonable at the time - throwing gasoline on a fire should be considered carefully. At least that was my initial reaction.

Several days passed and then the announcement was made: “Releasing the images would violate the Geneva Convention prohibition against releasing photographs of POWs. “Oh, okay, that seems reasonable”, I thought. “In fact that’s probably a pretty good idea, no more gasoline needed.”

But now we get this: Photo may show intelligence officers in charge

The officer, Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., 35, of Greene County, Pa., is leaning against the wall in the photograph, which was provided by his attorney, Guy Womack.

Graner identified four other soldiers in the photograph, labeled Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the copy provided to NBC News, as military intelligence officers, who he said were in charge of interrogations at the prison. A civilian translator is labeled No. 2, and Graner is No. 1.

This would certainly be a real good reason to not release any more photos - if they show that the torture (let’s call it what it is) is directly attributable to more than “a few rogue peons”.

In retrospect the time lag between the news of “more photos” and the explanation of “would violate Geneva Convention rules” doesn’t ring true. Any competent military attorney could have come up with that in 10 seconds or so. So once again, we’re left to assume the worst possible scenarios because the administration is not answering the questions.

Helen Thomas has some interesting observations: Rumsfeld is the designated fall guy

Rumsfeld certainly shares much of the blame for the lack of discipline and control in the military prisons.

But aside from such chain-of-command responsibility, the defense chief should bear a larger blame because of his boisterous proclamations two years ago that U.S. treatment of detainees wouldn’t be guided by the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war. Rumsfeld also arbitrarily deemed that Army regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be observed.

That conveyed a message down the line that “anything goes” when dealing with detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other places where U.S. interrogators have stashed prisoners. (I wonder where Saddam Hussein is being held.)

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan 5/11/04

Q One more, I have one more. The Red Cross says, in its report of February, 2004, now public, “Since the beginning of the conflict, the International Committee of the Red Cross has regularly brought its concerns about the abuse of prisoners to the attention of coalition forces.” The observations in this report are consistent with those made out earlier, several occasions orally and in writing to coalition forces. When did the President, or anyone in the White House, first learn that the Red Cross, for more than a year, was documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re aware of these issues, because the coalition and our military works very closely with the International Red Cross on these issues. And I would point out that you might want to talk to the Pentagon about some of these matters, because we believe in cooperating closely with the Red Cross. And the military has worked to address some of the issues that they raised. And they can probably brief you on some of those issues that they have worked to address.

“Talk to the Pentagon” seems to be the standard answer on these questions. You’d think that after a couple o’ weeks, the White House would figure out that they are being looked to for answers - but no, holding true to form, they won’t answer the question.

Q They raised this from March through November of 2003, they said, regularly.

MR. McCLELLAN: Understood.

Translation: “Yeah so what’s your point?”

Q Did their warnings, did their documentation of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners reach this building, reach the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s important that we work to address concerns like that. And I think the Pentagon can brief you about specifics about how we’ve worked to address some of those issues. We believe in working closely with the Red Cross on these matters. Detainee treatment is something that we always are looking at and talking about. It’s important that we make sure we adhere to high standards of conduct; that we are the United States of America and we stand for rule of law and we stand for justice and we stand for treating everyone with dignity and respect. And we believe in treating prisoners humanely. And so those issues are things that are constantly discussed, Terry.

“Talk to the Pentagon, talk to the Pentagon” - Geez, he’s like a fucking parrot.
What they (the White House gang) do not seem to realize is that WE READ THIS STUFF and when we see these “answers” we’re left to assume only the worst possible scenarios.
Based on McClellan’s “answers” I must assume that the White House knew about the Red Cross reports and chose to ignore them. What else can I assume? They don’t deny it, they don’t acknowledge it - they just deflect it.
Verdict: Guilty.

Q So the White House was aware that Iraqi prisoners were being abused before January of 2004?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, now, I didn’t use those terms. I said we’re aware of some of the issues that the Red Cross raised, and we’ve been working to address those issues. You can talk to the Pentagon about some of the ways they’ve worked to address those issues.

Of course you didn’t use those terms - you used NO TERMS at all!

Go ahead, Dana.

Translation: “Okay - I’m tired of this - next topic.

I’m getting thoroughly pissed about the fact that the White House press corp allows this bullshit to happen day after day - I believe that in a “democratic” society it is news when the leaders repeatedly refuse to answer simple questions. Now to be fair the questions may be simple and the answers extremely complex but that’s not the point. Day after day the questions are asked and the answers never come - that’s news.

Q Right. After he saw them, in talking to him, does he seem more or less likely to want to get them out, get out ahead of it, and release them to the public?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, again, Dana, those are issues that the Pentagon is working to address. And we’re going to stay in close contact with them.

Q But he’s the President. He has to have an opinion on this, particularly since you’ve described them as disturbing and disgusting.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he appreciates the issues that the Pentagon has to address, and the Pentagon is working to address those issues.

Q You said, quite clear, that there are issues of compromising criminal investigation. If those issues can be addressed, is the President’s position that he wants these photographs released?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to try to speculate on that. You also –

Q It’s not speculation.

MR. McCLELLAN: You also –

Q Is his basic –

MR. McCLELLAN: You also –

Q Is his basic position that they should be released if these other concerns can be addressed?

MR. McCLELLAN: You have privacy issues. You have ongoing criminal investigations. And they have to look to address those issues. They are working to look at those issues. And working with Congress to make sure that Congress can play their proper oversight role in these matters. And we will continue to stay in close contact with the Pentagon on these matters.

Q But he hasn’t yet decided whether in principle he thinks that they ought to be recessed?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that the process on the investigation is moving forward, as they have been, should be an open and transparent process. He’s made his views very clear on that. But he recognizes the importance of making sure that those individuals who committed these shameful and appalling acts are held accountable. And we don’t want to do anything that would interfere with that.

Q But what concerns us, though, is as a general principle, should pictures like this be released to the public so that people have a right to make up their own mind about it? Understanding that there are side issues that need to be resolved, if those issues are resolved, is it the White House’s opinion –

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to play –

Q – is it the President’s opinion, that in principle, these ought to be released?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to play the “what if.” We have to look at the reality of this, and look at these issues in the context of ongoing criminal investigations. That’s what the Pentagon is working to do, and they’re working to address those matters.

If I were a White House reporter I believe I’d file this:

White House Has No Opinion

White House, May 11, 2004: White House no opinion on anything other than the status of people’s souls based on the direction in which they pray.

The White House today refused to express any opinion on any matter of import. All queries are being referred to underlings and professional obfuscators.

Memo: Iraq Abuse Was ‘Vigilante Justice’

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A female soldier in the Army’s 320th Military Police Battalion took “vigilante justice” on Iraqi prisoners who she believed had raped Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, according to a letter from the battalion’s commander obtained by The Associated Press.

“When Master Sgt. Lisa Girman returned to Camp Bucca shortly before midnight, she took ‘vigilante justice’ against EPW (enemy prisoners of war) that she believed had raped Pfc. Jessica Lynch,” he said. “Four out of the 10 320th MP Battalion soldiers abused some of the EPWs; a clear indication that the abuse was the responsibility of those individuals acting alone and was not condoned by myself or any leader at Camp Bucca.”

I have no doubt that these types of things really happen - and they’re no doubt the ones referred to as the “thousands of investigations underway”. But - This does not explain the evidence of torture as a culture in the US “presence”.

Watch carefully. They’re blowing smoke and dropping chaff everywhere.

A Comic Apology

Most Americans truly believe – take this to be self-evident – that the United States is not only the world’s greatest country, but it has always been the last great hope of earth, that Americans have always been willing, more than any other Western power, to take on the White Man’s burden, to bring life, liberty and happiness to the rest of mankind. This is a testament to the power of American media: that it can claim to be the world’s freest media and yet control – like no other ‘free’ media – what an overwhelming majority of Americans know and believe about their country. And what they know and believe is America the free, pure and virtuous.

As a result, year after year, most Americans are kept in the dark, unaware of the actual, the real America – the only kind seen by much of the rest of the world. This is the America that daily employs its might to mangle the lives of hundreds of millions, that pushes a globalization that devastates the economies of the Third World, that instructs and arms foreign tyrannies to terrorize their own people, that aids and abets an Israeli machine that is determined to extirpate the Palestinians. This America acts in the name of freedom, in any way that it sees fit and necessary, to keep the world safe for American capital. How-ever, this dark side of America is nearly completely, nearly always, whitewashed by the myth-making powers of America’s elites.

A must read

We’re functioning in a – with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a war-time situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon.

Apparently the real problem is that people 1) took the photographs and 2) published them and most of all 3) that there are leagal restraints in dealing with the perpetrators. Are we to assume that if certain laws were obeyed that 1) the photographs would not have been taken and that 2) they would not have been published?

This is the same line being taken by several of the talk radio guys I’ve heard on the topic: the publishers of the photos are the real criminals. Their basis is that the photos themselves undermine the war effort and that by publishing them they’ve immeasurably damage our cause.

Well I agree that the publishing of the photos has hurt the cause - irreparably no doubt - but it certainly is not the messenger (publisher) that’s at fault here. If we’d nothing to hide then we’d have nothing to fear “getting out”.

So once again, what we learned in kindergarten is fully applicable.

”when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon” - this kind of comment is so typical of a weak defense. He’s attacking very specific actions and items while seemigly addressing the larger issue. The issue is not the release of the photos - the issue is that these things happened at all - happened with official sanction. These are the issues, not when Rumsfeld saw the pictures and not when Rumsfeld told the president.

Orwell is being proven right in many ways, but I think he missed something in the newspeak concept - it’s more than simply eradicating words (and therefore ideas) from the lexicon - he missed the fact that “the people” would lose their ability to understand the nuances of the language when used by practitioners with an evil agenda.

“with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a war-time situation” - this is scary. Making a distinction between peace time law and war time law. Sorry Rumsfeld but the Constitution stands at all times - there’s no distinction. This is a not-so-veiled prelude to more erosion of liberties. I am sure that given their way, these guys would hunt down the culprits and “disappear” them forever (in this case the culrpits being those that released the images - not the torturers.)

Bush Democracy: Do You Recognize His America?

Welcome to George W. Bush’s version of America - Bush Democracy. Apparently, he’s had his fanatical neo-con programmers working overtime to iron out all those bothersome bugs and kinks that have been holding the United States back for the last 228 years - exasperating glitches like openness, integrity, accountability, responsibility and the value of an informed public.

I have to admit, this new edition has been a little hard for me to get used to; it’s a lot different than the America that I grew up studying - and revering.

You might be having a similar problem, so, as a public service, I’ve decided to provide this helpful primer. Think of it as Bush Democracy for Dummies.

In Bush Democracy, the messy concept of the public’s right to know has been replaced by the far more user-friendly “don’t worry, we know what’s right for you.” Why clutter up the citizenry’s hard-drive with all sorts of unimportant facts and information?

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q Does the President –

Q So even though there was systemic failures –

Q Does the President take any responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghraib? And as the Commander-in-Chief, or as the President of the United States, is he responsible? It was on his watch.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, the people who are responsible need to be held accountable. That’s what the President believes. This –

Q Does he think he’s responsible?

MR. McCLELLAN: The actions of a few do not represent our United States military. Our United States military is committed to adhering to the highest standards of conduct, and they’re committed to adhering to our international obligations in treating prisoners –

In orther words, no he does not feel responsible. But rest assured, those of us that are ultimately responsible will have to be respnsible for this mess.

Q He doesn’t take any responsibility, is that what you’re saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: The people who are responsible for this need to be held accountable. That’s what the President believes – because what they did does harm what we are working to achieve, and it does not represent what America stands for, and it does not represent what the United States military stands for. And that’s why when these allegations came to light, the Pentagon and the military took strong steps to address it and hold people responsible and correct this, correct any problems that many exist. And the President wants to continue to receive updates about these investigations going forward, and that’s what he expects.

Yes, that’s what he’s saying.

How else are we supposed to take these non-answers? If they don’t answer the question, they evade, contort and jump around the substance of the question, then how else are we supposed to interpret it?

I’d just like to point out that the Taguma report was published in February 2004. In May the principles were saying “I haven’t read it yet”. Strong steps? I’m not so sure.

I fully expect to see the words “unprecedented investigation” to pop up in this matter pretty soon.

Q One more. General Taguba has already said that in his review of this matter, it was a systemic problem. Does the President agree with that?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think that’s all part of the investigation. And the President has been briefed on the Taguba report and the conclusions of it, and the President wants to continue to receive updates. The President’s focus is on making sure that we are taking strong steps to hold people accountable and to prevent something like this from happening again. And the military –

Q Who is responsible for the system, not the action – who is responsible?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I know. And the military – the military has a series of investigations going on right now, some that are more narrowly focused, and some that are taking a more comprehensive look at matters. And we need to let those investigations proceed. I’m not going to try to make assumptions about those investigations that are ongoing right now, but the President wants to continue to receive updates about where things stand and he will – he expects to.

Q But if you’re looking for systemic problems in the Pentagon, can you really trust the Pentagon to investigate itself?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn’t say within the Pentagon. I said, looking at the Iraqi prison system and looking at the way prisoners are treated in Iraq.

Q Which is run by the Pentagon. I mean, you’re saying – you’re basically sitting back to let Pentagon officials investigate their own systemic abuses.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President wants to make sure that action is being taken. And they are taking action. The President has confidence in the ability of the military to get to the bottom of this and to take the necessary steps to prevent something like this from happening again. It was the military, when this information came to light, that went public and said, we’ve got allegations of prisoner abuse here; we are launching investigations and we’re going to pursue those individuals who may have been involved in these activities.

Q Also the military which did not bring the full extent of the abuse to the attention of the President.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that as –

Q Do you really think they’re going to be more forthcoming now?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that as the investigations move forward, more information comes to light and you learn more about the precise nature of what occurred. And I think that’s what we’re seeing here.

So Bush has been briefed on the Taguba report, and he wants to get updates. Ya know, for a supposedly strong and resolute president, these sure are wimpy words - there are no strong words here at all. Everything is couched and deniable.

The distinction between the Pentagon and the Military is interesting. Could it be that Rumsfeld is associated with the Pentagon and therefore needs to be disassociated from the Military?

Too Few Troops
by Robert Kagan and William Kristol

Consider the source when reading this:

Unfortunately, resolve alone won’t bring success. Neither will well-delivered statements by the president. The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion a military and political strategy that maximizes the odds of success. That is what has been missing ever since Saddam’s statue fell a little over a year ago.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld famously talks about preparing for the “unknown unknowns.” Yet the present crisis was hardly unforeseeable, and Rumsfeld did not ensure that the military was prepared to deal with it. He failed to put in place in Iraq a force big enough to handle the challenges at hand. That is a significant failure, and we do not yet know the price that will be paid for it.

The question is whether Rumsfeld and his generals have learned from past mistakes. Or rather, perhaps, the question is whether George W. Bush has learned from Rumsfeld’s past mistakes. After all, at the end of the day, it is up to the president to ensure that the success he demands in Iraq will in fact be accomplished. If his current secretary of defense cannot make the adjustments that are necessary, the president should find one who will.

So it seems that the core neo-conservatives are telling Bush that he’s messin’ it up. “Get more troops in there and pacify those pesky Iraqis before this gets out of hand.”

Methinks it’d be better to have an emasculated Secratary of Defense rather than a new, even more hawkish neo-con Secratary.

Today’s “conservative” foreign policy has an idealist agenda

How can we characterize the post-Sept. 11 foreign policy of the Bush administration?

At first glance, it would obviously seem to be conservative-realist, insofar as it has focused on pursuit of American national security through prosecution of a war on terrorism. The administration has been at odds with many of its traditional allies over its refusal to participate in a string of international agreements and institutions, from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming to the International Criminal Court. After Sept. 11, it made clear that it was intent on a showdown with Iraq, bringing about “regime change” through the unilateral use of force if necessary. Although the administration eventually went through the U.N. to win a Security Council resolution mandating new inspections, there is clearly deep-seated distrust of international agencies that earns it a “conservative” label in the eyes of most observers.

But look again: Behind the emphasis on power, sovereignty and self-help, the Bush administration has articulated a not-so-hidden idealist agenda that is encapsulated in the term “regime change.”

The administration’s new National Security Strategy of the United States lays out an ambitious road map for the wholesale reordering of the politics of the Middle East, beginning with the replacement of Saddam Hussein by a democratic, pro-Western government. A variety of administration spokesmen and advisers have suggested that a different government in Iraq will change the political dynamics of the entire region, making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more tractable, putting pressure on authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and broadly promoting the cause of democracy in a hostile part of the world that has proven stubbornly resistant to all democratic trends. The present administration, in other words, has articulated anything but a conservative foreign policy. It is embarking on an immensely ambitious exercise in the political re-engineering of a hostile part of the world.

Dick Cheney’s Song of America

How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer

Rebuilding America’s Defences

Global Eye – Dark Passage

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

The president’s real goal in Iraq

The Cult That’s Running the Country

Joseph Wilson speak out.

I’m gonna to take a shower now….

Bush’s “Excuse and Explanation” on Arab TV Was Worthless and Demeaning

One of the problems with American ethnocentrism is that many Americans assume that because others don’t speak English as well as us, that they don’t think as well as us.

President Bush, Rumsfeld and General Myers have all fallen victim to this nonsense. Bush especially showed this ignorance in his speeches today on Al Hurrah (an American sponsored propaganda TV station that few Arabs watch) and Al Arabiyah (a Saudi TV station that gets only 24% of the Arab market). In addition, Bush pointedly refused to speak on Al Jazeera TV, the station that has over 60% of the Arab market overseas; thus, he cut off his nose to spite an independent, critical Arab TV station.

Come now, wake up, my fellow Americans. As a veteran of two wars, I tell you that what men fought for in WWI and WWII is missing; we are now the “bad guys”, those who are abusing the rights of others, we are the Nazis who want to control the land of others and to put them into prisons where their citizens are tortured, and when they fight back, as the Jews fought back in the Warsaw Ghetto, the American media label them as “terrorists” or “insurgents” or “foreign fighters!” Unfortunately, as I said, America has it all upside down, including the ignorance of Bush trying to gloss over with America’s misdeeds in Muslim lands.

Casualty of War

I have read the report. Systematic abuses at the direction of Military Intelligence and Pentagon contractors (dammit - call ‘em what they are!).

The bastards can deny all they want and claim ignorance and “I haven’t read it yet”. They can claim it was a “handful of bad apples” but you know what? Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba doesn’t think so - he believes there’s a culture involved that allowed this happen. A sub-culture within the US Military that allows torture and humiliation of POWs and “detainees”. No he doesn’t come right out and say it, but it’s there, between the clear and succinct conclusions.

How can such a scathing report be made without the heads of the military (Rumsfeld & Bush) not knowing anything about it? This investigation was requested in January ‘04. The allegations alone should have been enough to tip off the bosses (Rumsfeld, Cheney & Bush) that there was something serious brewing. And the best they can do is “I haven’t read it yet”. Bullshit. These guys are just plain stupid if they think that’s a satisfactory response. (Of course it could be true in which case they’re just plain unqualified to lead a Boy Scout troop let alone the USA.)

Rush used to make a joke that Clinton’s defense was that “the buck never got here”. With Bush it’s “nobody told me about the buck - how was I supoosed to know about it?” Nobody told Bush that airplanes would crash into the World Trade Center (I believe that) - but he was told that airplanes might be used as bombs and given that the WTC was a previous target of the same people, it doesn’t take a genious to put it together (I know, I know 20/20). But still, to state that “nobody told us” is just stupid and exhibits the hubris with which this administration is overflowing.

The Iraqi people deserve an apology for these incidents (see this). But who should make such an apology? The President? The VicePresident? A Cabinet member? How about the Head of Internal Affairs at the Agriculture Department? There’s no quibling about this: The President of The United States needs to stand before the world and 1) account for the US’s actions in the abuse and torture of prisoners and 2) account for the actions of the US in Iraq. Does he need to apologize? As in “I’m sorry”? I don’t think that’d go very far (at least with me) - I believe an honest accounting for how & why we got to this point is due to both US citizens (i.e. taxpayers) and the rest of the world - in that order (we taxpayers are his boss after all - if we’re accountable for his actions then we stand first to receive explanations).

This whole affair is another indication of just how sloppy this administration is - in nearly everything. They’re incompetent to run the country, its military and certainly incompetent to deal with other nations. When you add up the whole job they’re to do, they can’t handle it - and it shows.

From the AP:

LONDON - U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.

The envoy, legislator Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true.

During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman’s claims. But she did not say whether the people questioned included U.S. forces or commanders.

Asked for details, Clwyd said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she “didn’t want to harp on the case because as far as I’m concerned it’s been resolved.”

Clwyd, 67, is a veteran politician of the governing Labour Party and a strong Blair supporter who regularly visits Iraq and reports back on issues such as human rights, the delivery of food and medical supplies to Iraqis, and Iraq’s Kurdish minority. Her job as Blair’s human rights envoy is unpaid and advisory.

Clwyd said the Iraqi woman was arrested in Iraq in July and accused of having links to a former member of Saddam Hussein’s regime — a charge she denied.

The abuse occurred last year in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison and at another coalition detention center, Clwyd said.

“She was held for about six weeks without charge,” the envoy told Wednesday’s Evening Standard newspaper. “During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey. A harness was put on her, and an American rode on her back.”

Clwyd said the woman has recovered physically but remains traumatized.

“I am satisfied the case has now been resolved satisfactorily,” the envoy told British Broadcasting Corp. radio Wednesday. “She got a visit last week from the authorities, and she is about to have her papers and jewelry returned to her.”

Clwyd said she had been told about the case because the woman has relatives in Britain.

Clwyd, who said the woman did not want to be named, did not identify the American military unit involved.

Blair’s office said Wednesday the envoy had not delivered her report to the prime minister yet so, therefore, it could not immediately confirm her reported findings.

I understand that we want our troops to be fired and gung-ho about killing people and breaking things - in order to do so they must have an attitude towards the enemy that allows them to do so. But, and this is a big but, we did not invade Iraq with the frame of mind that the Iraqi people are enemies. We’re s’posed to be liberating them. Showing them what democracy and decency is all about.

We’ve failed miserably.