Oklahoma Values...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Senator 'Outraged at Outrage' in Iraq Prison Case

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As others condemned the reported abuse of Iraqi prisoners, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe expressed outrage at the outcry over the scandal and took aim at "humanitarian do-gooders" investigating American troops.
But Sen. John McCain, himself a former prisoner of war, said such humanitarian involvement distinguished the United States from its enemies.
"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and an outspoken conservative, told a U.S. Senate hearing probing the case.

In heated remarks at odds with others on the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) who criticized the U.S. military's handling of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, Inhofe said American sympathies should lie with U.S. troops.
"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of "Oklahoma values."
"If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Cindy Shea, 41, who works in advertising in Edmond, Oklahoma, said of Inhofe's comments: "I wouldn't say those are Oklahoma values. ... I don't think Oklahomans believe in injustice to anybody. I don't think the treatment there is reflective of the values held by the majority of Americans. I think what happened there is horrendous. It's the biggest mess ever."

HUMANITARIAN DO-GOODERS'

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, referred ironically to "humanitarian do-gooders" as he asked a panel of military officials whether the United States should have signed the Geneva Convention governing war prisoners.
When the officials answered yes, McCain continued in a facetious vein: "Why do you think we should? Because ... this keeps us from getting information that may save American lives. This is a restraint by humanitarian do-gooders. Why don't we just throw them in the trash can and do whatever's necessary?"

McCain said he feared future U.S. prisoners of war could face "very serious consequences" if U.S. forces "somehow convey the impression that we've got to do whatever is necessary and humanitarian do-gooders have no place in this arena."
Tuesday's marathon hearing followed similar long sessions on Friday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld apologized and said the conduct at Abu Ghraib did not represent U.S. military personnel in Iraq (news - web sites).

On Tuesday, Rumsfeld defended the U.S. military's role in Iraq and suggested that Iraq's expected reconstruction was no more deadly that the building of the United States after the Revolutionary War.

"The building of a free state in Iraq has proceeded probably with fewer lives lost and certainly no more mayhem that we endured here in the United States 228 years ago when we were going through it, or than occurred in Japan or Germany after World War II," Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon (news - web sites).

[sachmo71]

I'll bet there are more people following the senator's lead after that poor guy got his head chopped off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe just went way up in my estimation of him. He actually had the balls to say what I believe an awful lot of people have been thinking/feeling from the get-go.

[SackAttack]

I don't know. I'm not going to get into the political ramifications, but I did find it interesting how there was an American civilian decapitated as revenge for the mistreatment of the prisoners, and what's one of the first things to come out of the Bush administration?

"We're going to find the people who did this, and bring them to justice."

And for all that I generally support the President's policies, I have to tell you, the first thought that came to my mind was "are we talking about the same 'justice' that allegedly got this guy killed?" Now, I'm not saying you sit back and do nothing, but it seems to me that when there's a lack of control through the chain of command that leads to this sort of thing happening, you lose some credibility popping off that way, and possibly even only make things worse.

[ISiddiqui]

Thank you John McCain for walking out when this wacko was speaking. Aren't we supposed to be the 'good guys' here?

[CamEdwards]

Sack,

With all respect, it wasn't the fact that the prison abuse happened at Abu Ghraib that got Mr. Berg beheaded. It wasn't George Bush that caused this, or Donald Rumsfeld, or Gen. Meyers.

The only people to blame for this sick act are those who committed it. I don't agree with everything Sen. Inhofe said, but I agree with his general philosophy regarding the media coverage of Abu Ghraib.

[SackAttack]

Cam,

But ultimately, those in charge have to assert that authority. It's a responsibility that goes all the way back up the chain of command. There has to be accountability, and if those at the top don't enforce that, then is it really any surprise that those at the bottom might take the opportunity to get a little revenge for 9/11, for the loss of their comrades in combat or ambushes, and so forth?

I don't say that it's right, only that it doesn't surprise me. War is hell, and hellish things happen during war. They can be prevented, but it must start from the top. Those in command must assert themselves, and must lay down the ground rules, what's acceptable and what is absolutely NOT acceptable.

How many of the grunt soldiers, for example, know what the Geneva Convention is, beyond just a vague understanding? Do they know what it entails, what's permissible, and so forth? If not, why haven't the brass instructed them? No, the bad guys don't hold to the Geneva Convention, but does that mean we should lower ourselves to that level? If yes, then why the outrage over what's happening?

Doing whatever's necessary to win a war is fine, and all, but then you have to start asking yourself, how much of our humanity are we willing to surrender in order to accompilsh our objectives? How do we expect to have any long-term credibility in this region, any lasting impact for peace, if we take the view that "anything is permissible, as long as we win?" That's the tone I'm getting from these folks, that what's happening in the prisons doesn't matter, as long as we win.

And what then? I'm reading that some of the female prisoners have been raped. In Islamic culture, that's often tantamount to a death sentence. How are the people of Iraq, or, indeed, any Islamic culture in that region going to view us after this is all said and done? They don't trust us now, but are we really giving them any reason to?

[Crapshoot]

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe just went way up in my estimation of him. He actually had the balls to say what I believe an awful lot of people have been thinking/feeling from the get-go.

See Jon, this is were you and I part- I think that while he can say this, its blatant hypocrisy for him to basically endorse what was happening. What happened in the prisons is not justifiable, and is damn worthy of questioning..

[JonInMiddleGA]

See Jon, this is were you and I part- I think that while he can say this, its blatant hypocrisy for him to basically endorse what was happening. What happened in the prisons is not justifiable, and is damn worthy of questioning..
While we do appear to part company on the subject, we're not quite as parted as you might think.

Remember, it's not that I think it was a great or wonderful thing, it's just that I don't particularly give a shit about it either.

There is a difference there somewhere.

[dawgfan]

Remember, it's not that I think it was a great or wonderful thing, it's just that I don't particularly give a shit about it either.

There is a difference there somewhere.

Jon, why don't you particularly give a shit about those prison abuses? Do you not feel we, as Americans, have an obligation to hold ourselves to higher levels of moral behavior such as the Geneva Conventions?

[sachmo71]

I wonder if the producers at 60 Minutes feel at all responsible for the death of Berg. I think I would, at least a little.

[NoMyths]

Sack,

With all respect, it wasn't the fact that the prison abuse happened at Abu Ghraib that got Mr. Berg beheaded. It wasn't George Bush that caused this, or Donald Rumsfeld, or Gen. Meyers.

The only people to blame for this sick act are those who committed it. I don't agree with everything Sen. Inhofe said, but I agree with his general philosophy regarding the media coverage of Abu Ghraib.I'm glad to hear you say this, Cam. I was listening to Michael Savage* last night while driving home and he claimed that, quote, "liberal democrats" were to blame for Berg's death. Interestingly, Sen. Inhofe was on the show, and he called Savage a hero.

When it comes to outrage, I try to apply the opposites test. What do you think the American public's reaction would be if photographs were released showing American military personnel being treated in the same manner as those Iraqis?

*And wow...how insane is that guy?

[dawgfan]

I wonder if the producers at 60 Minutes feel at all responsible for the death of Berg. I think I would, at least a little.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Blame the messenger, right?

[ISiddiqui]

NoMyths... when asking how insane Michael Savage is, you best be prepared for a 3 page explination ;). The guy is freaking loony tunes, especially to gays who (sometimes) call in. There is dislike, and there is I'll-Matthew-Shepard-you hate!

[kcchief19]

[QUOTE=CamEdwards]The only people to blame for this sick act are those who committed it. QUOTE]
This might shock you, but I agree 100 percent with this statement. The sad thing is that that is not what will happen.

I'll be the senator from Oklahoma, as well as quite a few people on this board, would advocate the "let's bomb 'em all and let God sort them out" foreign policy or some variant there of. We abused their prisoners, they decapitated an American, let's carpet bomb Baghdad and finish it once and for all.

I just find it laughable that some people think that there is a degree or torture or abuse that is "better" than another, as though torturing a prisoner makes you a "better" person than the person who kills someone. They're both bastards -- and according to almost every religion in the world they're both going to pay for it later.

[NoMyths]

NoMyths... when asking how insane Michael Savage is, you best be prepared for a 3 page explination ;). The guy is freaking loony tunes, especially to gays who (sometimes) call in. There is dislike, and there is I'll-Matthew-Shepard-you hate!Hehe. I'd heard about the guy, but had never heard his show before the last couple of nights. The amount of hate the guy spews is unbelievable.

[Wolfpack]

The above isn't all that he said. Naturally, the media likes to take things out of context and sensationalize it a bit. Here's more of what he said:


"I hasten to say yeah, there are seven bad guys and gals that didn't do what they should have done. They were misguided, I think maybe even perverted, and the things that they did have to be punished. And they're being punished. They're being tried right now, and that's all taking place. But I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what is happening....

"I also am -- and have to say, when we talk about the treatment of these prisoners, that I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisoners. When he was in charge they would take electric drills and drill holes through hands, they would cut their tongues out, they would cut their ears off. We've seen accounts of lowering their bodies into vats of acid. All these things were taking place. This was the type of treatment that they had.

"And I would want everyone to get this and read it. This is a documentary of the Iraq special report. It talks about the unspeakable acts of mass murder, unspeakable acts of torture, unspeakable acts of mutilation, the murdering of kids -- lining up 312 little kids under 12 years old and executing them, and then of course what they do to Americans, too.

"There's one story in here that was in the I think it was The New York Times, yes, on June 2nd. I suggest everyone take that -- get that and read it. It's about one of the prisoners who did escape as they were marched out there, blindfolded and put before mass graves, and they mowed them down and they buried them. This man was buried alive and he clawed his way out and was able to tell his story. And I ask, Mr. Chairman, at this point in the record that this account of the brutality of Saddam Hussein be entered into the record, made a part of the record."


Now, I am a conservative, but I do beg to differ somewhat that just because Saddam was worse, it somehow makes our actions better in this regard. Saddam set the bar so ridiculously low that we had no choice but to be better, even in this degrading fashion. The objective, however, isn't to be an "improvement" on Saddam. It's to be the selfless humanitarians we have claimed to be and these individuals who performed these acts disrupted that image severely. No matter how much it is protested that it was a few, it will be the image the media, particularly Arab outlets, of the many. In this regard, we almost have to be perfect in our accounting of ourselves.

[ISiddiqui]

NoMyths: I know... you wonder why he hasn't been booted yet, while Howard Stern is facing banishment.

[ISiddiqui]

In this regard, we almost have to be perfect in our accounting of ourselves.

Yep... send these bastards to Leavenworth!

[sachmo71]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Blame the messenger, right?

You wouldn't feel at least a little responsible?

Read my post again. I'm not saying they should; I'm wondering if they do. I'm not blaming anyone, dawgfan.

[SackAttack]

Now, I am a conservative, but I do beg to differ somewhat that just because Saddam was worse, it somehow makes our actions better in this regard. Saddam set the bar so ridiculously low that we had no choice but to be better, even in this degrading fashion. The objective, however, isn't to be an "improvement" on Saddam. It's to be the selfless humanitarians we have claimed to be and these individuals who performed these acts disrupted that image severely. No matter how much it is protested that it was a few, it will be the image the media, particularly Arab outlets, of the many. In this regard, we almost have to be perfect in our accounting of ourselves.

Bravo, Wolfpack. That's what I've been thinking, but articulated much more precisely than I could have done.

[BishopMVP]

When it comes to outrage, I try to apply the opposites test. What do you think the American public's reaction would be if photographs were released showing American military personnel being treated in the same manner as those Iraqis?Wouldn't the more appropriate opposite example be the treatment of American civilians who commit criminal acts in countries near Iraq?

Overall, Inhofe wasn't condoning or saying it was acceptable. He was saying that he was outraged at the treatment and actions of a few, but more outraged by the actions of the media and many politicians on the issue. I agree with him. When Ted Kennedy says "Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." that pisses me off more than the acts of a few soldiers. When the few pictures of egregious acts committed by US Soldiers get more play than all of Saddam's victims ever did, it pisses me off. When the majority of the media considers anything pro-US to be propaganda, but anything anti-US to be objective reporting, and focuses all their attention on the latter, it pisses me off.

[NoMyths]

Wouldn't the more appropriate opposite example be the treatment of American civilians who commit criminal acts in countries near Iraq?Actually, no. I'm very interested in knowing how folks would respond if they saw the exact same types of photographs come out with American military personnel (or civilians, if you like) in them. Though I'm pretty sure I can guess the answer. The treatment of civilians by other countries has nothing to do with my question.

[BishopMVP]

Actually, no. I'm very interested in knowing how folks would respond if they saw the exact same types of photographs come out with American military personnel (or civilians, if you like) in them. Though I'm pretty sure I can guess the answer. The treatment of civilians by other countries has nothing to do with my question.You're talking about the treatment of Iraqi civilians who are in jail because they committed crimes (for more info on Abu Ghraib, here's an informal interview with an Iraqi who worked there - hxxp://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#108402732613255085 )by the jailers of the ruling government. So wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be to the treatment of American civilians who are in jail for committing crimes in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Turkey rather than the treatment of American soldiers by renegade terrorist groups?

I guess I just disagree with you.

[GoldenEagle]

I heard on the radio that we should put the prisoners of war through two a days football practices during the month of August in the south. Can you imagine the outrage if we did that?

[NoMyths]

You're talking about the treatment of Iraqi civilians who are in jail because they committed crimes (for more info on Abu Ghraib, here's an informal interview with an Iraqi who worked there - hxxp://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#108402732613255085 )by the jailers of the ruling government. So wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be to the treatment of American civilians who are in jail for committing crimes in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Turkey rather than the treatment of American soldiers by renegade terrorist groups?Bishop: Let me make this a bit clearer by giving an example. Let's say tomorrow Al Jazeera releases photographs of an American soldier being led around by a leash, naked, while being held by one of the militant Iraqi factions (This example leaves out the alleged sodomization with glow-sticks). Would you or would you not be outraged?

I guess I just disagree with you.I'm not sure I've made a point with which to disagree. But now I'm really interested in how you'd answer the question.

[Samdari]

Jon, why don't you particularly give a shit about those prison abuses? Do you not feel we, as Americans, have an obligation to hold ourselves to higher levels of moral behavior such as the Geneva Conventions?

Especially since at one time, in his neverending search for justifications for this war, Mr. Bush stated what a great thing we were doing liberating the Iraqis from the terrible treatment they received from Saddam Hussein. Then we go and treat them just as badly.

[BishopMVP]

Bishop: Let me make this a bit clearer by giving an example. Let's say tomorrow Al Jazeera releases photographs of an American soldier being led around by a leash, naked, while being held by one of the militant Iraqi factions (This example leaves out the alleged sodomization with glow-sticks). Would you or would you not be outraged?I'd be outraged at those who committed the act, but I wouldn't be outraged at every Iraqi and say we should kill them all, or say that this justifies our abuse. On a different note, I'm not sure the media would broadcast them, certainly not as widely as they have the Abu Ghraib photos. Just look at how much they play the video of Berg versus the press given to the pictures.

[BishopMVP]

Then we go and treat them just as badly.:rolleyes: (I've tried to avoid the rolling-eyes comment, but you can't seriously believe this.)

[CamEdwards]

I'm glad to hear you say this, Cam. I was listening to Michael Savage* last night while driving home and he claimed that, quote, "liberal democrats" were to blame for Berg's death. Interestingly, Sen. Inhofe was on the show, and he called Savage a hero.

When it comes to outrage, I try to apply the opposites test. What do you think the American public's reaction would be if photographs were released showing American military personnel being treated in the same manner as those Iraqis?

*And wow...how insane is that guy?

LOL. Yeah, Savage is a little over the top. Refer to him by his real name, Michael Weiner (no kidding).

Liberal democrats are no more to blame than George W. Bush. The killers are to blame. Plain and simple.

As to what Americans would think... I think they'd be outraged as well. Perhaps as outraged as they would be by seeing the actual death of Nick Berg, but I notice the national media hasn't been replaying his execution.

[NoMyths]

I'd be outraged at those who committed the act, but I wouldn't be outraged at every Iraqi and say we should kill them all, or say that this justifies our abuse.This is good to hear.

On a different note, I'm not sure the media would broadcast them, certainly not as widely as they have the Abu Ghraib photos. Just look at how much they play the video of Berg versus the press given to the pictures.The media would most certainly broadcast them. Remember all the airplay P.O.W. photos/video from earlier in this (and the last) Iraq war? The media is going to report whatever will be a big story, and American P.O.W. mistreatment would be a huge one. We've only had the Berg images a little while. I'd bet they'll still be getting press for a while (much like the Daniel Pearl story).

[BishopMVP]

The media would most certainly broadcast them. Remember all the airplay P.O.W. photos/video from earlier in this (and the last) Iraq war? The media is going to report whatever will be a big story, and American P.O.W. mistreatment would be a huge one. We've only had the Berg images a little while. I'd bet they'll still be getting press for a while (much like the Daniel Pearl story).They refrain from showing the whole videos. You're not going to see the part of the video, or any pictures of Berg's head held up to the camera. Same with Daniel Pearl. You say the media will report whatever is a huge story, and this is true, but there is no question showing these videos would increase ratings, so why refrain from showing them? Editorial discretion, which seems to extend a fair distance farther when it is Americans being abused/killed rather than the ones committing the acts. (EDIT - You should see the photos that came alongside this article in the Boston Globe today - hxxp://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/12/2_cite_photos_purported_to_show_abuse/ - portraying the gang rape of women, allegedly by US troops against Iraqi women. Turns out they were from a porn site based in Pennsylvania. The WaPo also published other alleged pictures, saying only that they "couldn't verify their authenticity." Keep this up and people will start to wonder.)

OOC, ignoring the fact it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, do you think that the Pentagon/White House should release the other pictures/videos they have?

[dawgfan]

You wouldn't feel at least a little responsible?

Read my post again. I'm not saying they should; I'm wondering if they do. I'm not blaming anyone, dawgfan.

To be a member of the press, I think you have to reconcile the possibility that there may be stories you report that will reflect badly on someone or something and that repurcussions may result from this information being exposed. The responsibility for the actions taking place rest with those who perpetrate them. The good that comes from the exposure of these misdeeds must outweigh the possible backlash from their exposure.

I didn't mean to imply that you feel they should feel responsible, but the idea behind that thought is a troublesome one in my view. Those that would suggest that the press should feel responsible IMO are transferring blame to the messengers of the bad news.

[dawgfan]

They refrain from showing the whole videos. You're not going to see the part of the video, or any pictures of Berg's head held up to the camera. Same with Daniel Pearl. You say the media will report whatever is a huge story, and this is true, but there is no question showing these videos would increase ratings, so why refrain from showing them? Editorial discretion, which seems to extend a fair distance farther when it is Americans being abused/killed rather than the ones committing the acts.

OOC, ignoring the fact it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, do you think that the Pentagon/White House should release the other pictures/videos they have?

Bullshit. Do you really think the media is going to broadcast the video of soldiers raping female Iraqi prisoners if they ever get their hands on it? Of course not. The media is showing all they feel comfortable showing of the Berg killing - there's no way in hell they're going to show his head getting cut off. What they showed of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was pushing the limits of what's acceptable for broadcast. Had similar mistreatment of Berg been the extent of what was done to him, it would've been broadcast in the same way.

[sachmo71]

To be a member of the press, I think you have to reconcile the possibility that there may be stories you report that will reflect badly on someone or something and that repurcussions may result from this information being exposed. The responsibility for the actions taking place rest with those who perpetrate them. The good that comes from the exposure of these misdeeds must outweigh the possible backlash from their exposure.

I didn't mean to imply that you feel they should feel responsible, but the idea behind that thought is a troublesome one in my view. Those that would suggest that the press should feel responsible IMO are transferring blame to the messengers of the bad news.

I see your point. I also understand that the media has a responsibility to report the news, but when you get down to the level of individual, it's got to be hard to see the results, especially after everyone runs around trumpeting that you were the one who broke the story. We'll never know, I suppose.

[BishopMVP]

The good that comes from the exposure of these misdeeds must outweigh the possible backlash from their exposure.Was that standard met in this case? With the stories, probably, but with the pictures I'd say no. Considering the military was already on the case, suspending and prosecuting offenders, the propaganda value to our enemies far outweighed any benefits from publishing them, unless you believe that we shouldn't be in Iraq, in which case you're probably glad these photos surfaced because it gives you another bad thing to focus on and help decrease support among Americans.

The hypothetical case is publishing the date and time that ships will sail. I don't think that reaches that point, and the government shouldn't get involved, but I believe sometimes personal discretion is called for.

[Huckleberry]

"If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Hmm. What was the report about the percentage of imprisoned Iraqis who are/were in custody because of misidentification? 70%?

[dawgfan]

Was that standard met in this case? With the stories, probably, but with the pictures I'd say no. Considering the military was already on the case, suspending and prosecuting offenders, the propaganda value to our enemies far outweighed any benefits from publishing them, unless you believe that we shouldn't be in Iraq, in which case you're probably glad these photos surfaced because it gives you another bad thing to focus on and help decrease support among Americans.

The hypothetical case is publishing the date and time that ships will sail. I don't think that reaches that point, and the government shouldn't get involved, but I believe sometimes personal discretion is called for.

In order for this story to have any meaning to people, samples of the photographs had to be made public.

For the record, I have no real problems with our operation in Afghanistan, aside from the fact that we're undermanned and don't seem to have a workable exit strategy. If these photos had turned out to be from a detention facility in Afghanistan instead of Abu Ghraib, I'd be just as outraged.

I'm not particularly thrilled at how the Kerry campaign is using this event as a fundraising device, just as I find it in poor taste the usage of 9/11 by the Bush campaign. I don't think this issue is strictly a partisan one; whether or not we as a country are willing to adhere to standards of human decency such as the Geneva Convention should not be a partisan-based. However, when examining the reasons why these abuses occurred, it is natural to look at the chain of command and the top of that chain happens to be a partisan politician.

[BishopMVP]

In order for this story to have any meaning to people, samples of the photographs had to be made public.Avoiding the question of why people pay more attention when pictures are there (I agree with you,) why the double-standard with the Berg or Pearl videos? And, AFAIK, every single photo available (EDIT - to the media) on Abu Ghraib has been republished and made public, along with others that are either unverified or since proven fakes, not exactly just a small sample.

For the record, I have no real problems with our operation in Afghanistan, aside from the fact that we're undermanned and don't seem to have a workable exit strategy.Lack of an exit strategy? We've got a functioning centralized government, elections coming up in a month and a few troops left for support/cleaning up terrorist and Taliban elements on the Afghanistan side of the border (unfortunately Pakistan pussied out last week and withdrew from their offensive, effectively giving free reign to al-Qaeda on that side of the border and meaning we won't be able to eliminate these elements until they change their mind.) It seems our strategy has worked very well so far, and for the future it's eliminate any threats from the Taliban/al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists (especially Lashkar e-Taiba, who seem to be the most prominent terrorist group now) that we can while waiting for Pakistan to clean up its side of the border. Not the best exit strategy, but short of invading Pakistan our only real strategic option at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, why don't you particularly give a shit about those prison abuses? Do you not feel we, as Americans, have an obligation to hold ourselves to higher levels of moral behavior such as the Geneva Conventions?
That's actually two different questions, with two different answers, so I'll have to go that route.

1) As to why I don't particularly care about this specific situation -- largely because I don't have much faith in the "rehabilitation" of these former enemies. Were it not for any potential gain of information from them, I'd quickly support a no-prisoners policy. (remember, I was not among those who expressed a "we've freed these poor oppressed souls" opinion when supporting the use of military force in Iraq. That aspect had pretty much zero to do with my overwhelming support of the decision).

2) A little tougher question, but I'll take a crack at it anyway, especially because it's a question that I don't think I've spent much time addressing as a separate issue. Frankly, the notion of "rules of warfare" strike me as rather absurd on their very face. It seems very much akin to the mentality that says "let's make guns illegal, so bad people won't have them" -- news flash: Bad guys don't care if guns are illegal. And historically, our enemies don't usually care what the Geneva Convention says about treatment of prisoners.

For me, when it comes to warfare, my bottom line is winning. Period.
End of sentence. End of major interest or concern. Incidents like the recent one, "collateral damage" incidents, and so forth, fall under a heading I'd probably label as "unfortunate". And that an intentionally mild word chosen to indicate about the level of concern or importance I place on it.
And that level would be even lower if not for the negative p.r. aspects that are associated with them.

Probably not the answer you'd want, and almost certainly not an answer many people here are likely to enjoy ... but it's about the best & most honest answer I can give you (especially since this complete post was broken up by work interruptions over about a 3 hour period).

Jon

[dawgfan]

Avoiding the question of why people pay more attention when pictures are there (I agree with you,) why the double-standard with the Berg or Pearl videos? And, AFAIK, every single photo available on Abu Ghraib has been republished and made public, along with others that are either unverified or since proven fakes, not exactly just a small sample.

I'm not following what the double-standard here is. Photos of both Berg and Pearl from the videos were widely published, just not the entire videos (do you really need to see each executed to believe it happened?)

Regarding more photos from Abu Ghraib, perhaps I'm mistaken but I was under the impression from Rumsfeld's admissions that more photos and some video existed than what was shown on 60 Minutes; if all of these photos and videos have since been made publicly available, I wasn't aware of it.

If you check the news today, Congress is being shown additional photos and video today but are not allowed to make any copies of them.

[BishopMVP]

For me, when it comes to warfare, my bottom line is winning. Period. End of sentence. End of major interest or concern.Why are we fighting Islamic extremism? Because we feel our society is better than the one they promote. If we're going to stoop to their level, why bother fighting? I do kind of agree with the argument that in warfare you do what it takes to win, but in this conflict, there is no question we can win (the only thing that would defeat us is losing the will to fight,) so I believe that we should strive to fight more humanely than our enemies, even if it does mean increased casualties on our side. This is what our armed forces have been doing historically, and that's what they're doing in Iraq. It gets annoying seeing people take isolated instances and use them to slander everyone in our army and the country, but that doesn't mean we can lower our standards.

There is also the consideration of whether something that helps us in the short-term helps us in the long-term. Regularly torturing Iraqis to reveal the location of anti-coalition forces may reduce casualties in the short-term, but would unquestionably hurt us in the long-term.

[BishopMVP]

I'm not following what the double-standard here is. Photos of both Berg and Pearl from the videos were widely published, just not the entire videos (do you really need to see each executed to believe it happened?)No, I don't, but then I don't need to see photos of abuse to believe it happened either. So why show the inflammatory part of one video/pictures and not the other?Regarding more photos from Abu Ghraib, perhaps I'm mistaken but I was under the impression from Rumsfeld's admissions that more photos and some video existed than what was shown on 60 Minutes; if all of these photos and videos have since been made publicly available, I wasn't aware of it.That is because the military/White House has refused to release them. Everything available to the media has been widely published (and some fakes). 60 Minutes/The New Yorker aren't sitting on any photos.

[dawgfan]

That's actually two different questions, with two different answers, so I'll have to go that route.

1) As to why I don't particularly care about this specific situation -- largely because I don't have much faith in the "rehabilitation" of these former enemies. Were it not for any potential gain of information from them, I'd quickly support a no-prisoners policy. (remember, I was not among those who expressed a "we've freed these poor oppressed souls" opinion when supporting the use of military force in Iraq. That aspect had pretty much zero to do with my overwhelming support of the decision).

There is a fair amount of evidence that many of the Iraqis imprisoned at Abu Ghraib under U.S. control were innocent of the charges against them. Presuming this is true, if some 'innocent' prisoners were among those subjected to these humiliations and worse, would that change your opinion at all?

Many of those imprisoned were done so in response to the anarchic conditions in Baghdad following the invasion - people looting, rioting, etc. I suspect a major component of their imprisonment was a "cooling off" period, to get them out of the heat of the moment and establish some measure of consequences for their actions as a demonstration that the coalition forces would try to enforce some form of laws of behavior. I'm not sure I'd characterize that as 'rehabilitation'...

2) A little tougher question, but I'll take a crack at it anyway, especially because it's a question that I don't think I've spent much time addressing as a separate issue. Frankly, the notion of "rules of warfare" strike me as rather absurd on their very face. It seems very much akin to the mentality that says "let's make guns illegal, so bad people won't have them" -- news flash: Bad guys don't care if guns are illegal. And historically, our enemies don't usually care what the Geneva Convention says about treatment of prisoners.

For me, when it comes to warfare, my bottom line is winning. Period.
End of sentence. End of major interest or concern. Incidents like the recent one, "collateral damage" incidents, and so forth, fall under a heading I'd probably label as "unfortunate". And that an intentionally mild word chosen to indicate about the level of concern or importance I place on it.
And that level would be even lower if not for the negative p.r. aspects that are associated with them.

It does seem a bit difficult to reconcile "rules" with "warfare". On the battlefield, I think that's fairly clear; on the other hand, when you talk of prisoners of war, that's a different environment. I certainly don't think our forces should act in such a way as to put themselves at grave risk in an attempt to appease international conventions, but by the same token I think it's reasonable to expect that our forces will behave in a manner consistent with our country's values regarding human rights, regardless of whether they are 'enemies' or not.

On a more fundamental level, I think we differ greatly on the importance of "collateral damage"; the conflict in Iraq has unavoidably been viewed by many in the Muslim world as a cultural and religious conflict, and as such this is a war about ideas and ideals as much as strategic elements like who controls what parcel of land. As such, I believe incidents like this do a great amount of damage to the attempt to win over the people of Iraq to buy into what we're doing there, and to a greater extent the moderate thinking Muslims around the world that are on the fence about our actions in Iraq. I believe that the invasion of Iraq will likely lead to an even greater level of American hatred and foster greater numbers of Arab and Muslim extremists willing to become anti-American terrorists; incidents like the Abu Ghraib prison abuses will only add to this.

Imagine you're a moderate Iraqi trying to convince your more extremist neighbor that the American occupying forces are a good thing and to trust their efforts at establishing a new government in Iraq; this becomes a more difficult position to defend in the wake of an incident like this.

I think we also differ in that I don't believe in winning at all costs, if that cost includes sacrificing morality. I'm not so naive as to think that war isn't necessary at times, but I believe there is a level at which we can engage in war and yet retain our dignity and humanity. I believe we can defeat barbaric, extremist enemies without becoming them ourselves.

Probably not the answer you'd want, and almost certainly not an answer many people here are likely to enjoy ... but it's about the best & most honest answer I can give you (especially since this complete post was broken up by work interruptions over about a 3 hour period).

Jon

I don't expect or want you to give me the answer you think I'd want, just as I wouldn't expect the reverse. I have fundamental disagreements with you on a number of issues, but I will acknowledge respect for the fact you state your opinions with no bullshit.

[dawgfan]

No, I don't, but then I don't need to see photos of abuse to believe it happened either. So why show the inflammatory part of one video/pictures and not the other?

You don't think there's a difference between photos of naked, hooded Iraqi prisoners being led from a leash by a female soldier and video of an American being beheaded? One is evidence of humiliation, the other is pure barbarism.

That is because the military/White House has refused to release them. Everything available to the media has been widely published (and some fakes). 60 Minutes/The New Yorker aren't sitting on any photos.

My point though is this - from what we've been told, these new photos and video are even more inflammatory than what we've already seen. If it's true that there is video of U.S. soldiers raping female Iraqi prisoners, and if that video were obtained by the media, there's no way they'd show it, just like they don't show a beheading of an American.

[Samdari]

:rolleyes: (I've tried to avoid the rolling-eyes comment, but you can't seriously believe this.)

The acts committed by US Soldiers are just as bad in my mind since they are further from the principles that I would expect the US govt. to adhere to than Saddam was from the best I could hope for from a middle eastern country. We did not treat them worse in deed than Saddam treated some of his countrymen, but compared to my expectation level....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why are we fighting Islamic extremism?
Are you asking me for my reasons for supporting it? Or what the "official" reasons are?

Because we feel our society is better than the one they promote.
I think that's a reasonable synopsis of the latter.

It also isn't the same as my own reason for support, at least not directly.

The difference is (if I can explain this minus the aid of inflection) that if I felt "my society was better than their society" but the two had no interaction, I'd care less what "their society" did or thought.

However, one "their" chooses to threaten "my" ... I take that real seriously.
I don't like threats, not even relatively empty ones. And I want them at least neutralized, if not terminated altogether.

... but would unquestionably hurt us in the long-term.
I'd seriously question the long-term negative impact ... if we take sufficiently effective measures in eliminating their inability to act on their displeasures.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... would that change your opinion at all?
Honestly, very little if any, and very likely none at all.

... the conflict in Iraq has unavoidably been viewed by many in the Muslim world as a cultural and religious conflict and as such this is a war about ideas and ideals ...
In another bit of utter candor, I don't disagree with them in the least on that point.

... the attempt to win over the people of Iraq to buy into what we're doing there
I believe that's a fool's errand in the first place, and therefore deserves
no real consideration. To borrow a phrase & then paraphrase a bit more "Hearts & minds my ass. Take 'em by the balls, that's the only way they'll ever follow."

Imagine you're a moderate Iraqi trying to convince your more extremist neighbor that the American occupying forces are a good thing and to trust their efforts at establishing a new government in Iraq; this becomes a more difficult position to defend in the wake of an incident like this.
And becomes even more difficult to maintain that argument when your extremist neighbor kills you, your wife, your children, and your goats for speaking on behalf of the infidel invaders.

Dawgfan, that's who these people (the "extremists") are, that's what they do, and trying to have conversations with them is a task I'd reserve only
for fools & those who are seriously suicidal or have martyr complexes.

There's probably a shortcut to my bottom-bottom line that answers 99% of any questions people have about what I might do or think. I hesitate to use it, if only because it's about the most incredibly blunt thing I've ever said here (think about that for a minute, kinda staggering in a way ;) ).

At the same time, I'm not known for beating around the bush, so why start now -- whether I say it out loud or not, it's still what I feel when I lay down at night & when I get up in the morning, what's the real difference if I say it out loud.

If it meant saving the life of one American or one ally, soldier or civilian -- now, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or 2 centuries from now -- I'd willingly & without hesitation eliminate every Iraqi man, woman, and child on the planet today. And more of the same for their neighbors if they object in a fashion that poses a threat to this nation or it's allies.

I don't think there's much left on the line below that one.

Jon

[BishopMVP]

I've gone too far overall here. I do think there is a double standard and that the media should have exercised more discretion, but some of the examples I've used are too absolute.You don't think there's a difference between photos of naked, hooded Iraqi prisoners being led from a leash by a female soldier and video of an American being beheaded? One is evidence of humiliation, the other is pure barbarism.This quote made me realize why I was exaggerating. I was so pissed off at the people who want to equate the two, or us and Saddam that I went off on some different tangents.The acts committed by US Soldiers are just as bad in my mind since they are further from the principles that I would expect the US govt. to adhere to than Saddam was from the best I could hope for from a middle eastern country. We did not treat them worse in deed than Saddam treated some of his countrymen, but compared to my expectation level....That's pretty messed up logic, IMO. You have higher expectations for A than for B, so when A fails to live up to them, he becomes as bad as B. Needless to say, I disagree.I'd seriously question the long-term negative impact ... if we take sufficiently effective measures in eliminating their inability to act on their displeasures.I'm not sure what you mean by sufficiently effective measures. Terrorists have shown that a few determined people can cause extensive damage. Short of nuking every Arab country (and even that wouldn't prevent it all - there are Americans/Europeans who believe in it) or turning into a police state here in the US, there is no real way to eliminate their inability to act. The best hope is to crack down on the money, do our best to prevent chemical/biological/nuclear weapons from falling into their hands and minimize the pool. To dawgfan, while Iraq hurts us in the short-run, the status quo in the Middle East was unacceptable and a successful Iraq will help accelerate a reformation in most of these countries. An Iraq that falls into chaos will lead to increased terrorism, which is why we can't afford to lose.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, any attempts to censure Senator Asshole... er, Inhofe?

[BishopMVP]

To borrow a phrase & then paraphrase a bit more "Hearts & minds my ass. Take 'em by the balls, that's the only way they'll ever follow."I disagree with this.
If it meant saving the life of one American or one ally, soldier or civilian -- now, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or 2 centuries from now -- I'd willingly & without hesitation eliminate every Iraqi man, woman, and child on the planet today. And more of the same for their neighbors if they object in a fashion that poses a threat to this nation or it's allies.Which is partly why I really disagree with this, the other being that I don't tolerate genocide.

Look at the Kurdish part of Iraq. They love us. Not like, not tolerate, love. That's partly because of circumstances where the alternative was much, much worse, but we've won the hearts and minds of that part of the country. The more time we spend in Iraq and interact with the people, the more they like us. Other than Iran and Israel, where the majority of the population supports us, and maybe an emirate or two, Iraq is the Arab country with citizens most supportive of the United States, because they get to see more of Americans than other places where it is only anti-American propaganda. The reaction of most Iraqis to Abu Ghraib appears to be best described as indifference, while in most other Arab countries there was outrage.

[BishopMVP]

Btw, any attempts to censure Senator Asshole... er, Inhofe?Wouldn't happen since the Republicans control Congress. How about censuring Ted Kennedy for saying "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

[ISiddiqui]

Ted is probably more correct than Inhofe, sadly.

[BishopMVP]

Ted is probably more correct than Inhofe, sadly.In a word, no. Inhofe wasn't condoning the abuse, he was just saying he was more pissed off at the amount of outrage and how much it was being used in partisan ways. Senator Kennedy was providing propaganda, if not aid and comfort, to our enemies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Look at the Kurdish part of Iraq.

I must conceed that I was thinking of areas of Iraq other than the Kurdish region. (Without realizing it at all, I believe I've come to think of it as something other than "Iraq" -- I don't know what exactly "the Kurdish region" maybe, but I wasn't thinking of them in that statement)

The reaction of most Iraqis to Abu Ghraib appears to be best described as indifference ...
Interesting observation you make there. Sounds a lot like my own reaction (which upsets some people considerably). Not that the connection means anything, it just struck me interesting.

[ISiddiqui]

Inhofe wasn't condoning the abuse, he was just saying he was more pissed off at the amount of outrage and how much it was being used in partisan ways.

Sorry, but that's just apologizing for his remarks. I think Inhofe was pulling a Limbaugh and poo-pooing the abuse. That seems evident from his remarks. I mean how can you POSSIBLY condemn the outrage?

Senator Kennedy was providing propaganda, if not aid and comfort, to our enemies.

:rolleyes: <- I guess that's the best response to such a statement.

'Cause raping female prisioners is so distinct from what Saddam's guards used to do?

[BishopMVP]

Sorry, but that's just apologizing for his remarks. I think Inhofe was pulling a Limbaugh and poo-pooing the abuse. That seems evident from his remarks. I mean how can you POSSIBLY condemn the outrage?"I hasten to say, yes, there are seven bad guys and gals that didn't do what they should have done. They were misguided. I think maybe even perverted. And the things they did have to be punished, and they're being punished. They're being tried right now and that's all taking place. But I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what is happening."
:rolleyes: <- I guess that's the best response to such a statement.

'Cause raping female prisioners is so distinct from what Saddam's guards used to do?I guess degree matters none. A few isolated incidents where the perpetrators are punished and condemned versus a systematic state-run system. Nope, no difference, America=Evil, Great Satan, move along.

[ISiddiqui]

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of "Oklahoma values."
"If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Yeah, he wants these guys punished bad. It's a nice backtrack by him. But his words are out there. Yes we ARE concerned about the treatment of those individuals Senator Fuckface!

I guess degree matters none. A few isolated incidents where the perpetrators are punished and condemned versus a systematic state-run system. Nope, no difference, America=Evil, Great Satan, move along.

It's not seeming very isolated now, after Senators have seen tons of incidents:

(From the BBC)
Speaking after seeing the unpublished abuse images, Senator Ron Wyden said : "I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated."

"Take the worse case and multiply it several times over," he added.

So except for a little hyperbole, how far off the mark is Senator Kennedy? We are torturing these people. Whether it is ordered from the top or not matters not, the fact that it is systematic does.

[BishopMVP]

It's not seeming very isolated now, after Senators have seen tons of incidents:# of deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our custody: 25.
# ruled homicide: 2
# of rapes: not sure, but probably not very many.
# killed by Saddam on average each year: 20,000 would be a low estimate
So except for a little hyperbole, how far off the mark is Senator Kennedy? We are torturing these people. Whether it is ordered from the top or not matters not, the fact that it is systematic does.A - It's not systematic. B - What has been shown so far is abuse, humiliation. Not torture. Not murder. Does that matter at all?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes we ARE concerned about the treatment of those individuals Senator Fuckface!
No ISiddiqui, YOU'RE concerned about it. And those who oppose the President are concerned about it (or, more accurately, concerned with how they can best exploit the situation).

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other. They aren't (a majority at least) happy it happened, heck, we'll even agree that those responsible should be disciplined, but they aren't wringing their hands over it a lot either. Oh, there'll be some temporary discomfort, more because they didn't enjoy watching it than anything else, but that's about it -- it's temporary, because it isn't nearly as important as any of a hundred other things.

Most importantly, given the timing, it won't sway a significant number of votes, so I suggest that you find a different dog, 'cause this one ain't gonna hunt.

Or better yet, go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter ... I like it when the opposition wastes its time.

[ISiddiqui]

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other.

Look at the poll numbers. They've plummeted after this scandel hit. Bush is now tied with Kerry. The number that support our presense in Iraq has dropped to very low depths. So yeah, I think the average American is VERY concerned about this.

go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter

:rolleyes: Yep, Americans violating the Geneva Convention is something which REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! Let's talk about important stuff like if Kerry got Botox injections. I'm sorry, but I can't find things which matter MORE than this! I mean, really, our whole occupation in Iraq is seriously compromised by this. And we could have made this great.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Look at the poll numbers. They've plummeted after this scandel hit.
I alluded to that already, it's temporary. Predicatable even. It's knee-jerk stuff that you can count on every time.

So yeah, I think the average American is VERY concerned about this.
You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

I don't believe I've mentioned Botox here or anywhere else (actually, I think you may be the first time I've seen anyone anywhere mention it, now I gotta go look around).

I'm sorry, but I can't find things which matter MORE than this!
Then, I'm sad to say, that you either aren't paying attention very well or
a) don't get it.
b) refuse to get it.
c) never will get it.

And there ain't much I can do about any of the above.

So go have yourself a good cry, or a good mad, or whatever works for you. Get yourself all lathered up over it, throw a fit, write your Congressman, march the soles off three pair of shoes, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Somewhere along the way though, I strongly & sincerely suggest that you take steps to prepare yourself for GOP control of both chambers of the state legislature, and 4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime. Because that's what you're gonna get, and there's too many voting Americans who understand what's really important to allow anything else to happen.

[NoMyths]

# of deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our custody: 25.
# ruled homicide: 2
# of rapes: not sure, but probably not very many.
# killed by Saddam on average each year: 20,000 would be a low estimate
[i]A - It's not systematic. B - What has been shown so far is abuse, humiliation. Not torture. Not murder. Does that matter at all?Does homicide not mean murder in your book? Does sodomization with glow-sticks not mean torture? Just because we're not torturing and killing as many as Hussein doesn't make it right.

Again, if American soldiers were killed or sodomized while in captivity, I have a feeling I know which of the defensive folks around here would be leading the charge, screaming for blood.

[ISiddiqui]

You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

Sorry, but I think human rights abuses committed by American soldiers DOES impact on reality.

you either aren't paying attention very well

Actually I'd say that about you. You're poo-pooing American soldiers committing human rights violations ON TAPE! For God sakes, man! This could (probably will) doom any success we can possibly have in Iraq and then what? The Middle East will NEVER be on our side after this.

I mean what can be worse? We've done Al Queda's recruiting work for them for the next 50 years! All they have to do is point to Iraq and say look what happens when we allow the Americans to enter the Muslim world! It's a damned catastrophe!

I mean, can you please look into the long term? I know it is fucking hard for you, but long term consequences are kind of important.

4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime

Sorry, but Reagan can't run. And the second best President can't either (ie, Clinton). Bush.. man, I think I'd almost rather take Carter the way things are going. And I can't believe I freaking voted for the idiot.

[ISiddiqui]

Here is something fun:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/scandal.tm/index.html

"We're going to live with the consequences of this for the next 40 years," says a senior White House official, and few would accuse him of exaggeration. Most immediately, the scandal has imperiled the U.S. effort to pacify Iraq by turning even more ordinary Iraqis against the occupation and reinforcing the sense that control is slipping everywhere, less than two months before the U.S. is due to hand sovereignty back to the nation.

Nothing the Bush Administration said or did could contain the damage. The President, who says he first learned of the existence of the photographs when they were aired two weeks ago on CBS's 60 Minutes II, went on Arab television to proclaim the abusive treatment "abhorrent" behavior that "does not represent the America that I know."

His words weren't enough to dent the outrage of Muslims who wondered why he failed to apologize. A day later Bush finally said he was sorry, but America's image in much of the Arab world may well be irredeemable. U.S. officials tried to portray the sordid scenes as the isolated acts of a few low-ranking soldiers who were violating U.S. policy. The military, they pointed out, has already rooted out the offenders and is disciplining them.

[BishopMVP]

Does homicide not mean murder in your book? Does sodomization with glow-sticks not mean torture? Just because we're not torturing and killing as many as Hussein doesn't make it right.It's murder. It's torture. Those numbers were in response to the systematic claims. The abuse and humiliation are possibly widespread. The torture (like the glow-sticks) is a few isolated incidents. The rapes/murders are probably at most 10 incidences across Iraq over a year from over 300,000 soldiers. And the military is taking steps to reduce these numbers. Compare to the number of prisoners raped/murdered in our prisons every year and it's no contest. I'm not condoning or saying it's acceptable in any way. I'm just saying this whole thing is ridiculously overblown and, to combine two analogies, grasping at trees while missing the forest. When the pine cones up the ass thing happened on Long Island, we didn't have a Congressional investigation into high school athletics; when the UVM hazing incident occurred we didn't have a congressional investigation into college athletics; when prisoners in our prisons are regularly abused, humiliated and raped we turn the other way. Doesn't mean any of these things are right, but the reasons why people have chosen to highlight these specific abuses and how they are expressing their outrage are enlightening.Again, if American soldiers were killed or sodomized while in captivity, I have a feeling I know which of the defensive folks around here would be leading the charge, screaming for blood.Round here, I'm pretty certain the usual suspects in these threads are already set in their opinions. I don't think Dutch or JoninMiddleGA are going to have their opinions changed by one incident, and you/ISiddiqui won't believe our war is any more right and just if that occurs. Personally, I'd be calling for the people responsible to be killed or arrested and punished for their actions. I'd also be arguing against those who wish to take an isolated incident and use it to generalize about the entire group of people. Same as I'm doing here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Middle East will NEVER be on our side after this.

And who, in their right mind, honestly believes that would or could happen no matter what happens?

We could pave their streets with gold, beat our women to death, kill at their behest, even stop bathing regularly ... and they still would seek our destruction at the first reasonable opportunity.

Until you manage to come to grips with that reality, nothing else is really going to matter much.

The last word is all yours. Enjoy.

[ISiddiqui]

And who, in their right mind, honestly believes that would or could happen no matter what happens?

Before Iraq, after 9/11, there may have been a chance. In fact Bush believed it himself.

We could pave their streets with gold, beat our women to death, kill at their behest, even stop bathing regularly ... and they still would seek our destruction at the first reasonable opportunity.

Until you manage to come to grips with that reality, nothing else is really going to matter much.

:rolleyes: Ah yes, ugly American generalizing the whole Muslim world = Al Queda. The wonders of American educational system.

[McSweeny]

No ISiddiqui, YOU'RE concerned about it. And those who oppose the President are concerned about it (or, more accurately, concerned with how they can best exploit the situation).

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other. They aren't (a majority at least) happy it happened, heck, we'll even agree that those responsible should be disciplined, but they aren't wringing their hands over it a lot either. Oh, there'll be some temporary discomfort, more because they didn't enjoy watching it than anything else, but that's about it -- it's temporary, because it isn't nearly as important as any of a hundred other things.

Most importantly, given the timing, it won't sway a significant number of votes, so I suggest that you find a different dog, 'cause this one ain't gonna hunt.

Or better yet, go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter ... I like it when the opposition wastes its time.

ya know Jon, i disagree with pretty much all of your political views and i don't usually post in these threads... but i pretty much agree with what you've said here.

[ISiddiqui]

ISiddiqui won't believe our war is any more right and just if that occurs

Um... but I believe the war is right and just (I kinda have to if I want to keep refering to myself a neo-conservative)... I just don't like the way it is being carried out. Do you have me confused with someone else? FYI, I'm the moderate neo-conservative, who believes diplomacy is just as important as force at times.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I alluded to that already, it's temporary. Predicatable even. It's knee-jerk stuff that you can count on every time.


You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

I don't believe I've mentioned Botox here or anywhere else (actually, I think you may be the first time I've seen anyone anywhere mention it, now I gotta go look around).


Then, I'm sad to say, that you either aren't paying attention very well or
a) don't get it.
b) refuse to get it.
c) never will get it.

And there ain't much I can do about any of the above.

So go have yourself a good cry, or a good mad, or whatever works for you. Get yourself all lathered up over it, throw a fit, write your Congressman, march the soles off three pair of shoes, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Somewhere along the way though, I strongly & sincerely suggest that you take steps to prepare yourself for GOP control of both chambers of the state legislature, and 4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime. Because that's what you're gonna get, and there's too many voting Americans who understand what's really important to allow anything else to happen.


From http://www.thehill.com/mellman/051204.aspx -

In the latest Gallup poll, John Kerry leads George Bush by five points among registered voters when Nader is included, and by 6 when he is not.

......No challenger has ever done as well against an elected incumbent at this point in the cycle. Every incumbent who won re-election had a double-digit lead over his challenger at this stage. Lyndon Johnson led Barry Goldwater by 59 points in the spring of ’64. Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by 14 points, Ronald Reagan led Walter Mondale by 17 and Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by 11.

Of course, some incumbents who went on to lose were doing better than Bush is today. The president’s father led Clinton by six points at this stage but was beaten anyway.

Thus, Kerry’s margin is 11 points better than was Bill Clinton’s at a similar point in time against Bush I. What, you haven’t seen that “Kerry stronger than Clinton” headline?

Only one challenger has ever done as well against an incumbent at a comparable time in the election cycle. Jimmy Carter had a similar six-point lead over the unelected and subsequently defeated Gerald Ford. The nation had just been through the long national nightmare of Watergate and Ford had pardoned Nixon.

.....campaigns are events that unfold over the course of the cycle. Most of the movement in polls comes in the aftermath of the conventions. Incumbent presidents are the best-known politicians around. Challengers are usually not as well known. Kerry is no exception. Today, many voters are expressing a preference for the Kerry they don’t know over the Bush they do. That is striking. Often, unpopular politicians still lead at this stage.

/end of article/

Yeah sure it's May and anything could change in the next few months, but anybody who thinks Bush is going to waltz into second term isn't thinking straight. This is still basically a 43-43 nation with a bunch of moderates in the middle. Plus, in the battleground states...Kerry is leading. National polls really mean nothing, state by state do. Because quite frankly, it doesn't matter if Bush wins Texas by 30 points or Kerry does the same in Massachusetts. Those 15-16 states will decide the election, and they're beginning to break for Kerry. Yeah, it could all change. We could capture Osama tomorrow or the Golden Gate Bridge could blow up.

Sorry to but in on the torture thread, but I had to put on my amateur polisci hat on when I saw that line by Jon.

[SFL Cat]

I'm glad to hear you say this, Cam. I was listening to Michael Savage* last night while driving home and he claimed that, quote, "liberal democrats" were to blame for Berg's death. Interestingly, Sen. Inhofe was on the show, and he called Savage a hero.

When it comes to outrage, I try to apply the opposites test. What do you think the American public's reaction would be if photographs were released showing American military personnel being treated in the same manner as those Iraqis?

*And wow...how insane is that guy?

Personally, I think most American military prisoners would probably be toasted beyond human recognition and hung out for display while a large crowd cheered. Or perhaps some would get the special "Berg/Pearlman" treatment, Al Qaeda style.

[Crapshoot]

Honestly, very little if any, and very likely none at all.


If it meant saving the life of one American or one ally, soldier or civilian -- now, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or 2 centuries from now -- I'd willingly & without hesitation eliminate every Iraqi man, woman, and child on the planet today. And more of the same for their neighbors if they object in a fashion that poses a threat to this nation or it's allies.

I don't think there's much left on the line below that one.

Jon

Acolytes always scare me- the quote above is a classic example why. I respect your right to think they way you do, but this is very Goering like speak. Then again, the utopia you seem to want is remarkably Goering like in nature.