The Prison & The Soldiers

Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of criticism this week for comparing the rituals in the prison in Iraq to fraternity hazing. That is what it appeared to me too, thought obviously more serious and definitely criminal.

I will agree with Rush on one thing. I won’t jump on the condemnation bandwagon. The media and the Democrats have seized this issue and blown it completely out of proportion. My father-in-law was asking me about it last night and could not get past the pictures. The pictures caused the outrage and the facts are being ignored.

Here is what we know:
A small group of soldiers forced Iraqi men to strip and forced some to masturbate, forced human pyramids, and one soldier — who got knocked up by another soldier — put a leash around an Iraqi. There are other allegations, but the central fact is that it was a small group of soldiers committing the acts.

The abuse was reported by a solider up the chain of command.

The command chain investigated, arrested, demoted, fired, and publically reported what had happened. Soldiers are still being disciplined, courtmartialed, demoted, and jailed.

Those are the facts. That we now have salacious pictures does not change that.

But, the Dems now want Rummy fired? Why? If Bill Cohen or Les Aspen was SecDef, would they have handled the situation different? I’m sure the Dem response is that it wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Well, probably not because we wouldn’t be in Iraq, but had we been in Iraq, how do we know for sure?

I think it could have happened. Should Cohen or Aspen have been fired? No, they would have done what Rummy did — immediate investigation, corrective action, and discipline.

Here now are some questions:

Will the Democrats who are horrified by what these soldiers did, admit that Iraqis are better off now than before Saddam was overthrown?

Will the Democrats admit that the prisoners who were assaulted by American soldiers had, more likely than not, previously tried to kill American soldiers?

Will the Democrats admit that a number of the Iraqi prisoners, in a past life, did to others what is not being done to them?

Will the Democrats admit that the participating soldiers, etc. are not reprsentative of the entire military?

Will the Democrats question whether gender integration has been a good idea, what with the pregnant girl who had the lease and the Brig.Gen. who refuses to take responsibility, blames others, and cries incessantly on Greta Van Sustren’s show?

4 Comments

  • How about Shrillary referring to what the Iraqi prisoners were put through as “atrocities?” (Over and over again during Rummy’s testimony on Friday.)

    Atrocities are what happened at Auschwitz. Atrocities are what Saddam did to his people for 30 years. Atrocities are what happened to the four American contractors whose bodies were mutilated, burned, and then hung from the bridge. Atrocities abound in this world, but I’m not sure that lining up a few thugs for some humiliating pictures, although wrong to be sure, counts as an “atrocity.”

  • So, like, do U.S. soldiers have to cut the heads off of babies before you’re willing to call them atrocities?

    You’re seriously missing some points here, guy:

    1. “… admit that Iraqis are better off now than before Saddam was overthrown?”

    How are they better off?
    Are the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed during the conflict better off now?
    Are they better off now that we have allowed the country to become a breeding den for a variety of terrorists from other countries?
    Are they better off because Iraqi museums and historical treasures have been looted & destroyed?
    Are they better off when we detain and imprison Iraqis indefinitely without due legal process and without notifiying them of the charges against them?
    Yes, they must be better off, sure. Because clearly most Iraqis are so excited about the US occupation forces staying for a long, long time.

    2. “Will the Democrats admit that the prisoners who were assaulted by American soldiers had, more likely than not, previously tried to kill American soldiers?”

    That fact enemy combatants were trying to previously trying kill you does not relieve you of your obligation to uphold their rights under the Geneva Conventions when you are holding them prisoner.
    Or perhaps you are like Donald Rumsfeld, that paragon of virtue, and believe that the Geneva Conventions are not so important.

    3. “Will the Democrats admit that a number of the Iraqi prisoners, in a past life, did to others what is not being done to them?”

    Sure, so that must make it OK for US soldiers to rape, brutalize, and torture them now. (Maybe you want to check out the latest edition of Newsweek if you think this is an exaggeration.)

    4. “Will the Democrats admit that the participating soldiers, etc. are not reprsentative of the entire military?”

    Yes. Absolutely. WTF does that have to do with it? (Has it occurred to you that many servicemen are Democrats? I know some of them personally.)

    5. “Will the Democrats question whether gender integration has been a good idea, what with the pregnant girl who had the lease and the Brig.Gen. who refuses to take responsibility, blames others, and cries incessantly on Greta Van Sustren’s show?”

    You mean like those dozens of female fighter pilots who flew countless flawless sorties over Iraq and Yugoslavia? Tell me, when was the last time you flew an F-16 and took out a half dozen surface-to-air missile batteries? Yes, women are incompetent, overly-emotional and should be having babies and not doing real men’s work.

    6.”refuses to take responsibility, blames others, and cries incessantly on Greta Van Sustren’s show?”
    You know at first I thought you were talking about Rumsfeld, President Bush, and General Meyers.

  • Rex your bafoonery makes fisking you quite easy:

    Are the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed during the conflict better off now?

    Tens of thousands? Care to give us a civilian/combatant breakdown of that nebulous number? Or are you going to take Amnesty international’s agitprop and run with it?

    Are they better off because Iraqi museums and historical treasures have been looted & destroyed?

    ohh my gawwd.. you can’t possibly still be using this meme in your arguments!.. Can you name the looted museums? Can you come up with a hard number or value of what was lost?

    Did you know that the vast majority of looted artifacts have been recovered? And that the ones that haven’t were taken by insiders with keys to the glass cases weeks before the invasion?

    4. “Will the Democrats admit that the participating soldiers, etc. are not reprsentative of the entire military?”

    Yes. Absolutely. WTF does that have to do with it?

    What does that have to do with it? uuuhhhmmm well lets look at it this way: Is it better to have 10 abusive soldiers or 100,000? If you answer this in the affirmative, then yes, yes that does have something to do with it.

    You mean like those dozens of female fighter pilots who flew countless flawless sorties over Iraq and Yugoslavia? Tell me, when was the last time you flew an F-16 and took out a half dozen surface-to-air missile batteries?

    Dozens? Countless? uhhh..I think women fighter pilots and their ‘sorties’ are abundantly countable, and while we are here, I don’t get how you made the jump from Eric skewering England on Greta, to your hysterical lady-fighter-pilot argument? Alas I have fisked this argument anyway..

    Now I know you are severely challanged by the facts:
    6.”refuses to take responsibility, blames others, and cries incessantly on Greta Van Sustren’s show?”
    You know at first I thought you were talking about Rumsfeld, President Bush, and General Meyers.

    Don’t recall Rumsfeld, or the President ever having a tearful sitdown with Greta..

    ohhh… and one more.. I skipped this one on purpose so I could save it for last, because it is indicative of how selective our friends on the left are when it comes to Terrorism:

    Are they better off now that we have allowed the country to become a breeding den for a variety of terrorists from other countries

    Yup.. Sadam had the clamps on those “breeding dens” yup.. Nooo terrorists in Sadam’s Iraq.. Yup.. Abu Nidal and Abu Abas chose to stay in Iraq because of the awesome Health coverage.Yup the gents in Ansar Al Islam were but missionaries spreading peace and not a group of hardend Afghan fighters granted sanctuary in Iraq and encouraged to destroy democratic Khurdistan.

    Right now 5 men are on trial in Jordan for plotting a chemical attack so astronomical that had it came off, deaths would have reached 6 figures.. The information gathered from these men directly implicates Zarqawi in Iraq, and if you knew the timeline of that cooperation, you’d know that Zarqawi was planning terror opperations from Iraq a full year before the ‘invasion’..

    Ok.. I’m done fisking.. hands tired.. I rest now.

    Arvin

  • Arvin, I disagree that I’m challenged on the facts. You can’t make facts go away just because you don’t like them. So I feel obligated to debunk your debunking.

    >>Care to give us a civilian/combatant breakdown of that nebulous number?

    1. Sure. Casualties: Lowball – (Bush administration numbers) 1,254 civilian casualties.
    Highball – about 10,000 civilian casualties (from several sources – Mike Ewans compilation from DofD statistics, and Physicians to Prevent Nuclear War, and a bunch of others if you care to look & feel that you can’t trust Amnesty International.)

    Combat casualties: Hard to add this in because the administration is so secretive with these numbers. The Guardian estimates between 13,500 and 45,000 combat casualties. Because the administration is so protective of these figures, I’m inclined to think they must be high.

    So a total of something between 20,000 and 55,000 deaths. And counting.

    I stand by my “tens of thousands”.

    2. >>Can you come up with a hard number or value of what was lost?

    What is this, the Antiques and Collectables roadshow? The looting of museums and historic sites has been widely documented. This is an inane argument from you. The looting opportunities were created by the instability prior to, during, and after the invasion.

    3. >>Dozens? Countless? uhhh..I think women fighter pilots and their ‘sorties’ are abundantly countable

    Yes. They are countable.
    1,000 to 2,000 sorties by the Air Force per day during the most active stages of the war. (Or do you want me to count them exactly?)

    There are 519 female pilots in the Air Force. They fly all types of US aircraft, including F-16s, Blackhawk and Kiowa helicopters. They have been widely recognized for their sorties in the Gulf.
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/09/female.pilot/
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.thumper/

    19.4% of the Air Force is female. (2004) statistics.

    My “dozens” of female pilots was quite low, actually.

    4. >>Don’t recall Rumsfeld, or the President ever having a tearful sitdown with Greta..

    Obviously that was meant as a sarcastic joke. Probably went right over your head… but I do think the tearful sitdown is in the works. At least I hope so. (Do I dare bring up the ‘R’ word?)

    5. >> Yup.. Sadam had the clamps on those “breeding dens” yup.

    Actually, he did. Specifically with regard to Al Queda. In fact, the CIA was extremely critical of the Bush administration for wasting so much time on
    Iraq when the Al Queda ties were so much stronger elsewhere.
    So we’re back to the argument of whether the threat from Iraq was credible and grounds for war in the first place. Obviously we disagree on this point ( we certainly aren’t alone in this debate) and could go back and forth about it all day — but I’m done wasting time on you and your hollow counter-arguments.