O semanário liberal-conservador britânico The Economist, que apoiou a invasão do Iraque, vê bem o que os demais campeões da ocupação não querem ver: sob pena de total descrédito da coligação, alguém tem de ser responsável pela vergonha dos Estados Unidos no infame tratamento dos prisioneiros iraquianos:
«(...) The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him. (...)»
(The Economist, ed. de hoje)
Adenda:
O New York Times de hoje é da mesma opinião. O editoral, intitulado «Donald Rumsfeld Should Go», defende:
«It is time now for Mr. Rumsfeld to go, and not only because he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough. The United States has been humiliated to a point where government officials could not release this year's international human rights report this week for fear of being scoffed at by the rest of the world. The reputation of its brave soldiers has been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably harder because members of the American military tortured and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should have known, given the flood of complaints and reports directed to his office over the last year.»