Senetors Big Mouth

[vidcc]

source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/index.html)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/vert.inhofe.ap.jpg


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee dismissed Tuesday the outrage over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, saying Iraqis depicted in widely broadcast photographs probably had "blood on their hands."

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," Sen. James Inhofe said during a hearing on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

The Iraqis held in the section of the prison where the abuse occurred "are not there for traffic violations," he said.

"If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners -- they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents," said Inhofe, a conservative from Oklahoma. "Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Inhofe also lashed out at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, accusing his campaign of exploiting the issue with a fund-raising letter calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. There was no immediate response to Inhofe from Kerry's campaign.

President Bush and other top U.S. officials and leading Republicans have condemned the abuse of Iraqis held at the Baghdad-area prison, once a notorious torture chamber under ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Democratic senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Evan Bayh of Indiana appeared surprised at Inhofe's remarks, and some other Republicans disavowed them.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, left the committee room during Inhofe's remarks. Asked outside the meeting room whether he agreed with Inhofe, McCain replied, "No way."

And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Arizona, said, "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."

He added that the investigation into prison abuse should "be bringing us together and not tearing us apart."

Inhofe said the photos photographs of U.S. soldiers mistreating hooded, naked prisoners should be accompanied by photos of mass graves and the executions of prisoners under Saddam.

Though he called the soldiers charged with abusing Iraqi prisoners "seven bad people," he added, "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."




Well that just about says it all, we go in and liberate the iraqis from saddam because he "abuses human rights" but it's ok for us to do it because these are "bad men" :angry:
This man actually gets payed out of my taxes, i hope this comes back and bites him on his ass repeatedly

[Busyman]

What's bad is the illogicalness :D of him saying this out loud.

I actually get where he is coming from but his emotional rant makes him sound like an idiot.

I don't agree with some things in the Geneva Convention either but killing a prisoner in captivity or torturing them if they fall off a box is going to far. This Senator sounds like he's condoning the whole scandal.

I believe if you are trying to interrogate a prisoner in wartime that keepng them naked in a dark cell is small potatoes. I&#39;m not sure but I think the Geneva Convention even outlaws that. I think it&#39;s called humiliation. <_<

[2nd gen noob]

He&#39;s an American politician...what&#39;s new?

p.s. that wasn&#39;t intended as a weightless dig, but a serious question. How many times in the past have American politicians fucked up in public?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 2nd gen noob@11 May 2004 - 21:23
He&#39;s an American politician...what&#39;s new?

p.s. that wasn&#39;t intended as a weightless dig, but a serious question. How many times in the past have American politicians fucked up in public?
That was a weightless dig.

Politicians fuck up in public.

America is just the most public that your gonna get.

We televise our own troop movements for god&#39;s sake. :lol: <_<

[j2k4]

He should certainly not have said what he said, how he said it.

I think he could have made the point a bit more eloquently; I am not inclined to defend such verbal clumsiness, but he may have felt constrained by time limitations and so felt a need to speak shortly and bluntly, in order to get his idea across-I don&#39;t feel his method justified, but there it is.

I will say that the drawing of improper conclusions by the press or others can be more than irksome; I regard the deplorable treatment of the detainees at Abu Ghraibe as a failure stemming from a lack of leadership and restraint/discipline at grades far below cabinet level, and not in any way reflective of, or attributable to, the fact of a Republican administration or, specifically, George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld.

To insist that the last is the case is a purely political argument, but let&#39;s face it-&#39;tis indeed the political season.

I am struck by a couple of things:

Oddly enough, though Saddam was said by many to have no connection whatsoever to Al Qaeda, and was supposedly scorned by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda seems mighty comfortable in Iraq, and likewise seems to be enjoying the protection of an infrastructure of some long standing.

Those who say the Iraqis don&#39;t want the U.S. there might be required to re-formulate certain arguments, as it is becoming increasingly obvious the "insurgency" is peopled by large numbers of non-Iraqi Arabs who arguably don&#39;t belong in Iraq any more than the coalition; it appears every Islamic fundamentalist in the entire region is engaged in the "fight" in Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel, and the cynic in me says, "Screw it; stay there until they&#39;re all gone, &#39;cuz they&#39;re gonna come to us wherever we are in the Mid-East".

I know that&#39;s not the right way to think about this, I know it, but from a rhetorical point of view, it&#39;s no more out-of-bounds or outrageous than what some others are saying.

I would beg forbearance as to my own rhetoric today; I wasn&#39;t expecting events to affect me to the extent they have-I was engaged in different things altogether when I was jerked back to reality.

My sincerest apologies to all.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 May 2004 - 19:07
the cynic in me says, "Screw it; stay there until they&#39;re all gone, &#39;cuz they&#39;re gonna come to us wherever we are in the Mid-East".
the cynic in me says that it&#39;s only got partly to do with where american troops are, but that you&#39;d find that kind of thing wherever there&#39;s instability in the middle east. they&#39;re drawn to instability, like vultures. ;)

[Biggles]

J2

I think it is certainly true that having so many Americans so close is rather like having all their Christmasses at once (or whatever the Islamic version is). Not only are there are 150,000 troops there, but also about 20,000 civilians - from security to missionaries. Getting into the US is not easy (unless you are Mexican) but to have the mountain come to them appears more than acceptable. So Iraq has become the Mecca (I apologise unreservedly, it just seemed apposite) for every terrorist and would be martyr in the ME. The borders are huge and porous and totally insecure and the most militant countries are right next door.

(If one was cynical one might think that the Whitehouse decided that Iraq was the best place to host this showdown regardless of how compliant Saddam might have offered to be.) :o

I think the connection between Saddam and AQ is very weak. The fairly large AQ related Islamic extremist organisation that was on the Iranian/ Kurdish border was beyond his reach and more than the Kurds could deal with by themselves. This organisation is now spread through Iraq. Saddam&#39;s security had a good idea who many were (which is why they were holed up in the mountains) but most of that was lost in the orgy of violence and looting of last year. It is unlikely the Ba&#39;athists would tell us now; even if they did spend years trying to stamp them out themselves.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by 2nd gen noob@12 May 2004 - 01:23
He&#39;s an American politician...what&#39;s new?

p.s. that wasn&#39;t intended as a weightless dig, but a serious question. How many times in the past have American politicians fucked up in public?
That could be considered racist/culturalist/nationalist... whatever you pedantic lot want to call it :P

The correct phrase is "He&#39;s a politician, whats new"....they are universally known for Foot in Mouth Disease, its not purely an American Complaint.

;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@12 May 2004 - 14:00

I think the connection between Saddam and AQ is very weak. The fairly large AQ related Islamic extremist organisation that was on the Iranian/ Kurdish border was beyond his reach and more than the Kurds could deal with by themselves. This organisation is now spread through Iraq. Saddam&#39;s security had a good idea who many were (which is why they were holed up in the mountains) but most of that was lost in the orgy of violence and looting of last year. It is unlikely the Ba&#39;athists would tell us now; even if they did spend years trying to stamp them out themselves.
I think this is the crux; that the connection was or was not strong is of no real consequence-that the general atmosphere was one of overall hospitality to terrorists/terrorism, regardless of any group&#39;s allegiance, suffices for relevant purposes.

A state of mild antagonism between Saddam and Al Qaeda probably wouldn&#39;t have been sufficient to preclude what we now see; it may have only been something that existed between Saddam and bin Laden, we may never know, and at this point, does it even matter?

It&#39;s a mess no one could have predicted, not even the terrorists, I don&#39;t think.

They seem to realize they are fighting for their survival; this struggle could out-consume Al Qaeda&#39;s ability to recruit.

In any case, I feel a denouement of sorts is in the near offing.

Time will tell.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

;) Does anybody really think these Soldiers are going to do any real time?Did they kill anybody?Not that we know of.They will do a Year at the most.If that.

I am not saying what was done is right.But.....


"I&#39;m probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment,"


How many of us feel that way and just do not have the balls to say it?

[Biggles]

J2

You may well be right, although in that region Saddam was probabaly the least hospitable to any organisation with an allegiance not directly connected to him (largely due to his somewhat paranoid personality one suspects).

What always beggers belief, at least as far as I am concerned, is their very ability to recruit. On paper one would not give credence to 5 people joining*, but, it is said, OBL trained over 50,000 in his camps. The Shi&#39;ite cleric Sadr likewise attracts recruits in the thousands. I fear this could drag on for years.





* Then again I could never see the attraction of having a glass of beer with the Rev. Jones yet he attracted a disturbingly large number of people to his farewell party.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4+12 May 2004 - 21:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 May 2004 - 21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@12 May 2004 - 14:00

I think the connection between Saddam and AQ is very weak. The fairly large AQ related Islamic extremist organisation that was on the Iranian/ Kurdish border was beyond his reach and more than the Kurds could deal with by themselves. This organisation is now spread through Iraq. Saddam&#39;s security had a good idea who many were (which is why they were holed up in the mountains) but most of that was lost in the orgy of violence and looting of last year. It is unlikely the Ba&#39;athists would tell us now; even if they did spend years trying to stamp them out themselves.
I think this is the crux; that the connection was or was not strong is of no real consequence-that the general atmosphere was one of overall hospitality to terrorists/terrorism, regardless of any group&#39;s allegiance, suffices for relevant purposes.

A state of mild antagonism between Saddam and Al Qaeda probably wouldn&#39;t have been sufficient to preclude what we now see; it may have only been something that existed between Saddam and bin Laden, we may never know, and at this point, does it even matter?

It&#39;s a mess no one could have predicted, not even the terrorists, I don&#39;t think.

They seem to realize they are fighting for their survival; this struggle could out-consume Al Qaeda&#39;s ability to recruit.

In any case, I feel a denouement of sorts is in the near offing.

Time will tell. [/b][/quote]
j2k4,

Forgive me, but what planet are you living on?

For years, they had to confine recruitment to the Middle East.. quite often underground.


Now, they feel strong enough to recruit openly in both Europe and the USA...and the get away with it as they now have friends there.

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

[j2k4]

Quote: Rat-Faced:

j2k4,

Forgive me, but what planet are you living on?

For years, they had to confine recruitment to the Middle East.. quite often underground.

Now, they feel strong enough to recruit openly in both Europe and the USA...and the get away with it as they now have friends there.

Think of it this way, Rat:

They are recruiting in the E.U. and the U.S. because they must; they need bodies so badly the mid-east proper can&#39;t supply them fast enough.

The former have always (especially in the last few decades, owing to immigration) been "recruitable", but now they are being sought out, called home, however you want to refer to it, to join the cause: There is an actual WAR going on, and they are needed at the front.

It may even be that one of the reasons we have not seen further terrorist attacks on the home soil is that most of them have vamoosed to Afghanistan and Iraq, or other mid-east locales; who knows?

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

Correct, for the above reason.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

Though, as I said, they seem mighty comfortable in Iraq.

Quantify relations between the two however you like, whatever the situation was, coexistence with your average Arab is no less feasible; apparently a "street" Iraqi either doesn&#39;t share Saddam&#39;s aversion to the fundamentalists/terrorists, or, more likely, doesn&#39;t possess the capacity to resist them.


The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

What is it exactly that makes you think they are any closer/further to/from nukes now than they were before?

Given the "Oil for Food" fiasco, the likely sources of such weaponry would be a bit paranoid about transacting with terrorists, as the "Eagle Eye" is watching everybody just now.

Nobody wants that finger pointed their way, even if the finger belongs to the U.S.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@13 May 2004 - 02:04
Think of it this way, Rat:

They are recruiting in the E.U. and the U.S. because they must; they need bodies so badly the mid-east proper can&#39;t supply them fast enough.

The former have always (especially in the last few decades, owing to immigration) been "recruitable", but now they are being sought out, called home, however you want to refer to it, to join the cause: There is an actual WAR going on, and they are needed at the front.

It may even be that one of the reasons we have not seen further terrorist attacks on the home soil is that most of them have vamoosed to Afghanistan and Iraq, or other mid-east locales; who knows?

Recruitment for Islamic Terrorist Organisations has never been so high.

Correct, for the above reason.

They can now fight almost openly in Afganistan, Israel and Iraq... (and Al Queda spent a decade bombing Iraq from the Ground, while the US & UK bombed from planes, it was no "slight dislike" they had for each other as you well know)

Though, as I said, they seem mighty comfortable in Iraq.

Quantify relations between the two however you like, whatever the situation was, coexistence with your average Arab is no less feasible; apparently a "street" Iraqi either doesn&#39;t share Saddam&#39;s aversion to the fundamentalists/terrorists, or, more likely, doesn&#39;t possess the capacity to resist them.


The Coalition response is such that even passive Iraqi&#39;s that hated Saddam, are now openly rebelling in places.


What evidence do you actually need as to how strong these policies are making these organisations?

Will you be satisfied when they actually get a nuke?

What is it exactly that makes you think they are any closer/further to/from nukes now than they were before?

Given the "Oil for Food" fiasco, the likely sources of such weaponry would be a bit paranoid about transacting with terrorists, as the "Eagle Eye" is watching everybody just now.

Nobody wants that finger pointed their way, even if the finger belongs to the U.S.
They havent slowed down their normal terrorist activity at all... ask the Spanish for starters. The "Home Soil"...maybe that speaks volumes to some.... "Im all Right Jack", no wonder traditional US allies populations are turning against them as well as the traditional enemies

The "War" in Afganistan & Iraq are "extras"... they wouldnt be so open if they werent so strong at the moment. They are cowards by there very nature, sneak attacks etc.

Every death of a civilian, every prisoner that has their rights abused, every attack of the west on "Islam", makes them stronger not weaker. For every 1 that dies, 10 or more are created.




Yes they are "Mighty Comfortable" in Iraq now, they have the coalition to thank for that. A huge portion of the Iraqi people are ripe for Fundamentalism, which was denied by Hussain. Al Queda has plenty of people in Iraq that are sympathetic to them, the Kurds for starters, the previous "Government" certainly wasnt. Shame the "administration" didnt think of that before they went in..i certainly knew it, it wasnt exactly a secret.

Hell the number of sympathisers increases every day, ever wonder why?



You also seem to forget that there is one country that is already a Nuclear Power, and the Fundamentalists are quite strong there... Guess which are the fastest growing powers in Pakistan at the moment, and then ask yourself.... why?

Hint: They arent exactly Pro-American