"Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go?"

"McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go."

That's what I call a neat politician's answer, Doug. Completely evades the question.

...................
"...no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses.

Well, maybe - but here once more is a link to that International Red Cross report which tells how serious allegations about this kind of thing were made to the USA government a year ago.

And here is what the IRC director of operations has to say: "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system."

I think most people would see him as a "fair-minded person".

I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation; and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them.

I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. I am sure he was surprised to see the photos, andnthat he found them very distressing.

However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that.