This blog describes Senator Kennedy's remarks on the Senate floor on May 10th :http://www.hughhewitt.com/



Hewitt's comments from May 11th on this one:


Why are Kennedy's comments important? Well, Hewitt goes on:


Kennedy speaks at most of Kerry's major rallies. He is constantly stumping for the junior Senator. Kerry has not rebuked Kennedy for these comments, has not distanced himself from them...

Of course, why should he? They have not appeared in any major news outlet. Hell, this didn't even make the Drudge Report.

Questions for debate: Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

Questions for debate: Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?


I don't see these comments to be too far in excess over the reality. This was one of the symbols of Hussein's oppression and now it seems on its way to becoming enshrined a la My Lai as a symbol of American oppression.

Kerry has no need to denounce this comment by Ted Kennedy. It would not be a smart political move.

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

I don't think the comment reflects poorly Kerry. I think the comment in fact takes the Bush administration to task for mishandling this situation.
So I disagree with Hewitt that this is an example of repulsive excess, and I am not sure how strongly I would define it as exaggerated rhetoric.

Beside, what is the counterattack here really. Know it, not as BAD as Hussein, sure there were some deaths, some murder, and some moral degradation, but Hussein was much worse. I would think the Repubs would be better to let the comment go by instead of continuing to highlight a policy of stretching and breaking international law to try to get intelligence information out of detainees, some of whom would be considered innocent.

I would agree that Kerry is smarter to ignore the comment because he can rest assured the media will never take him to task for being closly associated with the man who made these ridiculous statements.

...but I think that they cannot be justified either...

False comparison. The abuse scandal is not an example of "American oppresion" it was not typical of American policy and was an aberrant incident. Saddam's torture was official policy validated from the top.

I put it this way in another thread.

That's my take...

Kennedy has just insulted the whole of the US military for the action of a few, Kerry should disengage form the man and he should be dreadfully ashamed of himself.

..but I doubt he is.

Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

I don't see anything to denounce here. Actually, I mostly agree with what Ted Kennedy is saying.

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

I guess I don't see what's so highly offensive in these comments, Amlord. Is it because Kennedy made a comparison between Saddam's actions and U.S. actions?

Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

Absolutely not- they are accurate and true- and we, as a nation, need to face this without going the Imhoffe route and saying "Gee, we are not as bad as saddam, let's put this in perpective"- we must be brutally honest with ourselves, to be outraged at our own behavior- we expect this from Saddam- not Rumsfeld,

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

Only if you are a GW supporter and are looking for a way to wiggle out of our "regime's" wrongdoing.

There is widespread abuse in our entire foriegn prisoner system right now, and there is no hyperbole large enough to over do it IMO

I don't really see any difference in Kennedy's comment versus Inhof's comments. Both were equally insulting to a degree. Yet I do notice a distinct partisanship in differentiating the two.................

I don't see the need for Kerry to speak out against Teddy, and it would be a pipe dream to think he would.

Kerry should be ashamed?????? Why?

From an American's perspective, what Americans did at Abu Garhib is very much on the same level as what went on in Saddam's regime. We knew Saddam ruled in this manner, and the actions performed by his guards was "expected" to use the word lightly.

An American, representing America while on foreign soil, that disgraces another human being as is depicted in the photos that we have seen thus far is tantamount to the worst atrocities committed by guards under Saddam, from this American's perspective.

I, like Kennedy, expect more from Americans, ecspecially since we are attempting to "Lead by Example".

If and when proof of the rape allegations emerge, will you then agree with Mr. Kennedy, that the rape rooms are now under new management? Do you really think that low level soldiers have this much liberty over their duties as to NOT implicate "higher brass"?

The Pentagon needs to be scolded over this, in the hopes that it never happens again. Kennedy is doing his duty.

Let me try and field this one.

Kennedy did not simply compare, the right term for the game he's playing is equivocation.

He places no perspective on the comparison and implied that the US has perpetuated the same action towards prisoners as Saddam which is plainly false. The US government is fighting and punishing such actions. Kennedy knows that, he's just politicking.

"Rape rooms uner new management" isn't offensive?


Honesty is indeed need here.

Inhofe spins by saying "we're not as bad as Saddam"
True and irrelevent.
Kennedy suggest we are as bad as Saddam.
Untrue, irrevelent, I can't think of anything nice to place here.

Any evidence that this treatment orginated from Rumsfeld or the adminstration as a whole?

If he had any dignity Kennedy would apologize possibly resign, this easily outstrippers Lott's offensive commentary.

Frankly I'm outraged at the outrage to the outrage!

All sarcasm aside, Kennedy's quote is tepid compared to some of his banter, and perhaps there is outrage to it because it hits too close to its mark? Methinks someone doth protest too much...

No, Saddam is not Bush and vice versa. Kennedy's hyperbole is just driving a point home that we should ensure we do not become the monsters we are fighting. Abu Ghraib is a chilling reminder of that. There is still much to be determined as to how much of this was institutional vs. wanton acts, so I'm careful not to judge too much at this point.

Kerry has no business addressing these comments. No more than Bush should have apologized for Karl Rove's actions in the 2000 primaries

I don't believe I heard a more outrageous comment from the Senator, but if you wish to point out an example, then by all means...

Meanwhile MEthinks someone doth guess too much..

Enough with the armchair psychology, it's simply low level ad hominem attack.

I protest because his remark is slanderously far from the truth.

Questions for debate: Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy? Why? Kennedy tells the truth: the only justification left for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a bad man. Iraqi citizens are still being tortured, raped and murdered- where is the change? A few extra dollars in Haliburton's pockets?

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?No. These comments are the truth.

Judging from the outrage, I must be missing about a paragraph of Kennedy's comments. To me, it looks like he mentions the most recent rationale for the war was human rights, and points out that prisoners were tortured in one of Saddam's infamous prison's, under U.S. supervision. I'm not seeing any direct claims that Bush is as bad as Saddam, or that all U.S. soldiers love torture, simply that our rationale for war is undermined by the bare facts of what happened. Thus our new reason for the war becomes a PR liability.

And of course, despite Kennedy simply making a pointed juxtaposition of our rationale for the war with the results of crappy oversight, the fact that two simple factual statements critical of the administration weren't widely reported is used as proof that the media is too liberal. Did President Bush not say the quote about torture chambers? Is anyone saying what was reportedly done to the prisoners in one of Saddam's old jails not torture? With several soldiers involved and different incidents, this would not have happened if the "management" was vigilant, regardless of if you implicate the most direct supervisor, Rumsfeld or the President (as if he'd accept the "buck" for anything). I'm not seeing the backlash potential of publishing this for anyone that doesn't already hate Kennedy or, alternatively, love S&M. It's less substantive than candidate Kerry joking about "regime change" meaning that he (*gasp*) hoped a Democrat wins in 2004 and the resultant phony outrage then.

But I suppose it's only natural that statements of fact reflecting poorly on the Admin.'s oversight should be spun into oblivion to somehow reflect poorly on John Kerry.

It doesn't matter, you think anyone outside of America will make that distinction?

As far as Iraqi's and the arab world are concerned it probably doesn't matter whether it was just a few bad Officers and enlisted personel or if the president himself supported it. "Americans" committed these acts against Iraqis.

Oh really? Do you know this for certain? I don't. Hyperbole does not equate with slander and I honestly believe there is much to be told about how we manage our internment process in wartime. While I am hopeful that things are not as bad as I fear, I'm also mindful of the reports coming out of GBC, Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib. I know there is an ongoing investigation, the facts of which we have not been privvy to. So how can you assume Kennedy is speaking falsely enough to characterize it as slanderous?

If the intelligence organizations are in fact calling the shots in these prisons as some have claimed (still unproven, I will grant) then it would not suprise me in the least to find this problem to be a LOT more systemic and a lot less unlike Saddam's Iraq as it relates to his intelligence appartus and internment system.

I'm willing to give due process a shot here. However, just the Taguba report alone indicates we should be striving for better treatment of those we detain. If we are to be an example of how democracy and liberty can work in an Islamic world, we have to be better than what we have become.

I make no illusions that Kennedy's words are anything short of impassioned rhetoric & hyperbole (& a little grandstanding). Just like those of the Senator from Oklahoma. This is a political feeding frenzy. Kerry did not make these statements, nor should he censor/distance himself from the person that did.


You are right. It was an instinctual response, shot past my normal tact filters and much wittier in my head than as html.

Doc

Of course not, such a direct statement would be politcal suicide.

However, I doubt the Senator is a stranger to the power of implication. After all Lott didn't say we'd be better of with segregation did he?

... and yet like Lott this comment is still deeply offensive.

The implication is that the deeds of Saddam and the Bush administration on prisoner abusive a relatively equal. That is false, slanderous even...

Rather than qualifying his statement, Kenndey insulted the whole of the military by implied it was comparable to the systematic use of torture under Saddam.

At the very least, we are owed an apology.

I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and say that you already know that .

If not it is explained in my previous post...

Granted I cannot know for sure, but then neither can Kennedy, therefore his own ignorance convicts him. It matters what Kennedy knows, if he doesn't know that rape is being used in a similar way to Saddam's regime then his comment is irresponsible and insulting in the extreme.

Edited to add:

Beside the point CR, made an assertion that sorely needs to be backed up otherwise it's just mud slinging.

Lets be clear about a few things:

Kennedy did not equate Bush with Hussein. Reading that into the statement is a willful attempt to imagine the worst so you don't have to deal with the elements of his statement which ARE accurate.

I am tired of hearing Bush-o-philes dismiss this as 'just the actions of a few'. Firstly seeing as at last count 19 prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan are under investigation, and that reports are coming out all over the place, it seems clear this is not just a couple good-old boys who lost control, it is a systematic problem.

Furthermore, consider this: In iraq under Hussein, how many people manned these 'rape rooms' and torture chambers? probably a tiny fraction of thos who were enrolled in the military. Yet the Iraqi military is justifiably condemned for its excesses and actions, and Bush held the Entire system acountable by firing the entire army, even though only a few were guilty of these terrible crimes.

I am tired of hearing Bush-o-philes dismiss the crimes as being because some troops were undertrained. I personally have undergone NO military training EVER, yet somehow along the way I learned that it is NOT allowed to torture or murder POWs.


Everybody understands that the scale of what Hussein did and the scale of what US troops have done is VASTLY different, there is no question at all of that. But the actions themseleves are very comparable, and that was the comment Kennedy was making. Was it entirely clear and totally unpartisan? Well no, of course not, it was a sound bite for effect. same as every other polititian, Democrat and Republican, makes every day.


EDIT to add:


If you still think Kennedy's remarks were over the top and somehow slanderous, then consider this:

If kennedy, by implication, did infer that the use of these rape rooms by US forces was more widespread than in reality (which I don't think he did, but lets say, for the sake of argument...), is he MORE or LESS wrong for his exageration, then Bush was when he claimed these rooms would NEVER be used again?

1. That assumption, as well as the "Bush-o-phile" nonsense are a couple examples of ad hominem attacks. If we could leave the armchair psychology and insulting blanket statements out of it, please?

2. Let's see that statement.

The purpose of that statement is to compare the actions of the US to the actions of Saddam. The range of the abuses is yet to be seen, but Kennedy implies this is either US policy or at the very least, not the exception to the rule. Without evidence to that effect his statement is wrong.

The difference is Saddam sanctioned such actions from the top (including watching some of the torture tapes as entertainment). The Iraqi army was not disbanded in punishment, merely for reorganization.

..and some people don't.
Undertraining+people already likely to commit such abuses can cause such incidents. Abuse goes on in domestic prisons as well, and not always sanctioned from the top either.

Much less.

By all accounts this was Bush's intention.

Kennedy was just mud-slinging.

True.



True, after Americans accepted the possibility that WMD would never turn up. Should I provide Bush quotes?



Probably an accurate quote of the president. I was proud of the way Bremer and the White House handled it.



I didn't hear Bush say this, but it sounds as bad as Rumsfeld's "digital cameras" complaint to the Senate.



Shame they don't.



1) Where does Kennedy directly "blast the military?" You can't sever the executive branch from the military. The military has always been a haven of choice for conservatives from which to safely lob attacks at liberals. "If you don't spend x-amount, you don't love our military. If you don't turn a blind eye, or at the very least make it a point to exonerate more often than condemn servicemembers, you, in effect, prosecute our men and women in uniform under the watchful vigil of our enemies." I'm tired of the patriotic angle used in silencing dissent. Surely the toolbox has room for other tricks.

2) If you disagree with *everything* Kennedy said at least he bit his tongue long enough to wait for the appropriate time to criticize the administration (something Republicans also do when it suits them), unlike Senator Inhof.

3) I disagree with Kennedy's "steepest and deepest fall from grace" portion. We are occupying Iraq with high expectations but wholesale slavery is hard to beat. I do agree with "a colossal failure of leadership." Not saying Bush is directly responsible, but do the DoD and the White House make it a point not to speak to each other?



Kerry forged political connections in a Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House? How dare he!



Not enough significance to score a home run with all the "bigs."



I must be a part of the commie or un-American population that isn't outraged over the outrage... I mean isn't outraged at Kennedy's comments.

Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

The answer to that question, like many issues for the past four years, depends on your opinion of Bush.

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

I don't think so. I'm glad, to put it with Hewitt's slant, Democrats are starting to conspire together. Maybe they're getting their backbone back.

The horror.

I'm drawing a blank as to why anyone is surprised a politician insinuated the administration isn't fit to lead. Bad, bad politicians. Where's Karl Rove when you need him?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

No, really, what is the difference. People are being raped and tortured under our watch. The only excuse for invading Iraq that isn't a total wash is that Hussein was a brutal tyrant.
If you bomb the crap out of someone's country to save them from human rights abuses, you don't then turn around and commit human rights abuses on these people.

Of course you don't commit huamn rights abuse in any case but I see your point. (Almost) No one is say is in any way defensible.

However it is unlike Saddam in that this was aberrant behavoir that will be tracked down and punished. Those who committed these acts were pointed out by their fellow soilders. The President acknowleged their crimes and vowed justice.

The difference is tremendous.

I don't think that Kerry needs to basically apologize, or even denounce some disgusting thing that Kennedey [who I dislike more than any United States politician, Charlie Rangel is a distant numero dose]. Kennedey has no shame, so I won't say he should be ashamed, but it isn't Kerry's problem that he would be stupid enough to say something that horrible.

CP

Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

No and no. Here's why.

As much as I think Ted Kennedy is a schmuk, his words, although scathing and bitter and from the looks of the photos and tapes that the United States Senate and the American public have seen, to a certain extent, are true.

It's sobering and it's sad.

First off, I'd like to give my parameters for what 'cruel and unusual punishment' is and is not.

Sleep deprivation and white noise tactics... not torture...

Forcing Iraqi men to pose in compromising positions and sicking dogs on them... thats unacceptable.

That said, unfortunately, we have been able to see the gross lack of discipline and professionalism of the soldiers in question, and it's manifestation in the horrid treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Now, those soldiers may not on all levels, reached Saddam's regime's status, but if this did not come out, what was going to keep them from reaching that?

It's like watching Casualties of War. Sean Penn and his soldiers doing what they wanted when they wanted with no respect for anyone or anything. Feeling as if they were untouchable because of the situation. And bureacracy not aiding in justice. The only differences here...

...time, place, and the stupidity of incriminating themselves.

I wouldn't go as far as to say (unless some of the even more disturbing images are released) that what those troops did were on Saddam's level. But Abu Ghraib was under new management. It was under the management of people who needed better discipline, leadership, and control. And as I believe Gen Taguba claimed, there was a total lack of it.

So Teddy, a bit extreme in his words, was not far off the mark unfortunately.

Should John Kerry denounce these comments by Ted Kennedy?

Why would he? I have a feeling he agrees with these statements. That's just my opinion, of course and that is based on Kerry's actions and words after his return from Nam. What I mean by that is it is clear to me, after reading Kerry's testimony to Congress after Vietnam that he believes abuses are the military's modus operandi.

Do these comments reflect poorly on Kerry, since Kennedy is the front man for his campaign?

Well, they do in my opinion, but his followers will have to decide. So far, just from reading the comments on this thread, it doesn't appear it will have any affect on Kerry's followers.

What I see happening here is the same thing that I heard happened in Vietnam. The drumbeat is pounding about how terrible our soldiers are. People say things like "It's not isolated" meaning it's widespread. Kennedy is saying these abuses are policy. Next thing you know, when Johnny comes marchin home they will be greeted by protesters saying these were

not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They … raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of Iraq in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This is an accurate statement. I will not allege that the actions of U.S. military, CIA and civilian contractors approached the scope of Saddam Hussein's cruelty, but I also think it is premature to minimize the misdeeds of our people before all of the evidence has come out.

(The Left) Senator Kennedy------>the American people<------Senator Inhofe (The Right)

This is how I see it. The more polarized the position, the more extreme the rhetoric. You will still find truth in the statements of both men, but you won't find objectivity. S.O.P.

I think it would be arrogant for Senator Kerry to presume to apologize for Senator Kennedy's comments. These senators are old enough to speak for themselves. Therefore it doesn't reflect poorly on Kerry.

I might add that President Bush makes full use of his Republican colleagues to express things that he would not appear Presidential saying. That's what all Presidents do.

By saying


And then

Are you not prematurely maximizing the misdeeds before all of the evidence is out?


Until an investigation is complete, we don't know whether there was torture, abuse, or that some or many charges were false.

How convenient that you left the beginning of the sentence out to make your point:


How about you check my postings to see if indeed I have maximized any misdeeds, DTOM? If you think I am, I challenge you to prove it.

The prison was reopened, wasn't it? And aren't Americans running it? And aren't the pictures showing sodomizing Iraqi prisoners with chemical lights and depicting scenes of forced masturbation and forced fellatio indicative of something you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of? Would you want this to happen to one of your family members? If not, you would probably call it some form of abuse.

Or the naked man on a leash--was that supposed to be S&M or B&D? What would you call this? What do you call forcing someone into pornographic deeds? These are pornographic pictures. Now there is some explaining to do.

To reiterate, I am not alleging that Americans are doing things equivalent to what Saddam Hussein did, but don't minimize it either until all of the facts are out. This might well be the tip of the iceberg, according to what Rumsfeld was saying about additional pictures coming out.

But then, you got me off the subject, didn't you? And you're a moderator. Shame on me that I took the bait.
Content edited several times

Out of all the inciteful things Ted Kennedy has said you pull this one up?

I really see very little wrong with what he said and see very little in common with what Senator Inahoe said.

Ted was speaking on the chaos and lack of stability in Iraq that he attributes to the Bush administration. His story and his content is basically saying Bush and his crack team didnt plan, were naive and are doing nothing to stop the escalating chaos. A choas and lack of control so profound that our soldiers have reverted to acting like a bunch of wild hooligans. A chaos so profound that as many as 9 of 10 people arrested are innocent.

I am in the military. I am a reservist. I am not an MP and I have a general understanding of the Geneva Convention simply from basic training. You are given the the basic do's and dont's of taking and holding a prisoner. In addition this stuff is rudimentary. For these moron soldiers to say hey we didnt know is to be blunt garbage. I believe in the competence of the US military as I know I am competant as I know that everyone in my unit (even the republicans ) are competant. I believe those soldiers acted the way they did because lack of leadership and supervision allowed them to taunt and ridicule until that escalated into physical acts until it escalated into the extreme. That lack of supervision that lack of chain of command and checks and balances is a result of the arrogance and ineptitude of the Bush administration and the the rush that was used when they went in with an unrealistic goal backed by an ill equipped and ill numbered forces. I think Kennedy is speaking on that ineptitude and lack of planning or understanding by using real life examples of military breakdowns.

Kennedy was merely pointing out the obvious contradiction of why we went to war. The president told us in a series of speeches that the torture chambers and rape rooms of Baathist Iraq would no longer be a source of fear for Iraqis. Recent events obviously prove otherwise. He made an accurate statement and merely called the president on a comment that we now know wasn't true. No excess, nothing that reflects badly on Kerry.

The rest of his statement...greatest fall from grace, etc is fine. THIS is the sentence which should be challenged.

When Rush Limbaugh (non-elected radio host) says something about Skull and Bones fraternity pictures, many people were asked that night and the next "Will you condemn Rush Limbaugh for his comments?"

When Ted Kennedy says something as outrageous as this, the silence is deafening.

The only thing the "Challenge" here is the word "REOPENED". Did they ever close?

Kennedy was merely working this issue for political purposes, broad-brushing the entire military and so many people are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

A small segment of our soldiers messed up BIG time. What is baffling to me is that people are unable to differentiate between Saddam's policy of torture and the US policy against torture.

And Rummy's "surprise" visit to Bahgdad isn't political????? Why didn't he make this trip in January when he first heard of the abuse? Why is he there now? For political purposes, period.

Is the torture that the American's inflicted on the same "Level" as that of Saddam's regime? No.

Is torture really some thing that is relative to the extensiveness of the torture? I think not. Torture is torture. Rape is Rape. To try and distinguish between what some of our soldiers did versus Saddam is akin to saying that "Date rape" is not as bad as raping a total stranger. The severity of the act should make no difference.

Now wait a minute. I was with you there, then you lost me.

Of course the severity of the act makes a difference. Punching someone in the mouth in a drunken brawl and cold-cocking someone with a baseball bat may both be assault, but the later is a lot worse. Our legal system is based on the severity of crimes and punishment for said crimes are graduated based on the severity of the act.

So, making someone stand there naked and cutting off their nose and ears may both be technically torture, but they are certainly not equal, either morally or legally.

No it was not. The only way you could get a direct insult out of that is if you were loking for one regardless of what i said. If you object to my use of the word 'Bush'o'phile' then I shall change to 'Bush-Supporters' henceforth.




Really? How good of you to interpret the intent of Kennedy's words for us. Did he tell you his purpose in an email discussion or on the phone?

I do not know what' Kennedy's intent was, so I can only go by what he actually said. What he said was that Bush commented on the benefit of the closure of Hussein's rape rooms, but now it seems some are still open and being used by US forces.

Is anything there false? Is any part of that statement wrong? You seem to have deduced from those words that he was implying that the US forces were doing thus under Bush's orders, or that he was saying that US forces were torturing people on the same scale as Hussein. Neither inference is reasonable.

He said very simply, Hussein used to torture people, we decried that as being evil, now it turns out we are torturing people.



Where does he say that? How does he imply that? I don't see any hint of either implication in his words. perhaps you could show us exactly which statement makes you believe Kennedy said Bush approved this, or MOST Us troops were doing this, and how you arived at that assumption.



Really? That certainly is one way to look at it. Another is to say that Bush was completely wrong, whereas Kennedy is correct in his statements.


Kennedy spoke nothing but the truth. Yes he used flowerly language, but your inferences from that seem based on very little, and you have ascribed a whole range of apparent 'intentions' to his words that are in no way obvious.

Well I am glad that you see it differently.

In terms of abuse as you stated, there are severities. The baseball bat to the face would probably end up with an attempted murder charge.

Now stick with the analogy that I used. Rape. Can you tell me how severity would come into play when we are talking about someone getting raped? Torture, is the raping of one's humanity. I don't see how someone could weigh the severity of Rape or Torture, but then again, you and I see it differently.

Yea, well we are comparing mental v. physical torture. Now, they are both torture, but they are not equal. Morally in your mind they may be, but the law does not see it that way.

But, let's look at your rape example. If you date rape someone v. say breaking into a woman's house and committing the act while holding a knife to her neck....they are both rape but they are not equal. You are certainly going to get a worse punishment for doing the later, even though technically they are both rape. Intent, brutality and physical violence always plays into it.

You're mighty right Rummy's visit is political.



He was there in February. I'm not sure what the trip was about, though.



I absolutely agree.



Thank you for making that statement.



Nope, torture is torture, just as you stated. The difference is that we don't condone it. It is not our policy, our tactic, our way of life. We did not go there to continue Saddam's policies.

No one is denying the abuses happened. Some are asking that we wait until the investigation is final before calling for resignations. Others are asking that we put this in perspective. Others, like Kennedy, are using this to the detriment of ALL US soldiers.

I want to see Kennedy and his followers tell the world the behavior of those few soldiers at that Iraq prison are not representative of all our soldiers. I want to hear him rail against the Isalmic extremists who sliced off Nick Berg's head. I want him to do SOMETHING besides blame America. It would be refreshing.

Senator's Kennedy statement is wrong because it is inaccurate.

He says the torture chamber's are reopened when we have allegations from a single Iraqi prison.


The point is that not everyone who objects to Kennedy's vitriol is a Bush supporter, chracterizing as such is a blanket statement as is a remarkably uncontructive tactic.

I take "Bush-o-phile" as an insult (I think the intent to make it one was rather obvious).

I take "Bush supporter" as an insult because I am not. I'd choose Bush over Kerry at this point, but I'm well outside his base

Kennedy said:

Not some of the torture chambers, not one.
Simply "torture chambers", without a qualification one is lead to believe all, or at least most, are being used in this manner. That's just the nature of the English language.

Funny, that's a blanket statement as well...

This is getting off-topic here.



I think Kerry should explain at least what his stance is and if it is different than Kennedy. If not, fine, let him stand by Kennedy's comments and endorse them.

I think the comments do reflect poorly on Kerry because they reflect poorly on the entire Democratic Party who have turned a very serious situation into little more than a political football. Comparing Bush to Saddam is absolutely ridiculous and I think the American people will see that.

Looking back at the statement and some of the posts in this thread, I can see why some people are offended by Kennedy's comments. I guess that when I read the statement, the focus, from my perspective, was not centered on those last two lines. My interpretation was that Kennedy is saying that every reason that we have been given for this war has been false, and now the last valid reason for the war has been turned on it's head. It would be nice to think that we could fix it by punishing the perpetrators, but armchair psychology or not, there is something metaphorical about the fact that American soldiers abused Iraqis and committed war crimes in the same prison that Saddam Hussein used to commit systematic human rights abuses. Those soldiers represent America, and it's a lot easier for people to remember the bad than the good even if the good soldiers are in the majority.

For someone like me who has been on the fence regarding the war in Iraq, this is a defining moment. I will wait until further information is available about how widespread and severe the crimes were to make a final judgement, but my stance has certainly shifted, and that is why Kennedy's statements ring true to me. Is it exaggerated politicking? Yes, I can see that it probably is, and the lack of perspective is a reasonable complaint, but no one really knows at this point how large of an exaggeration it is.

Perhaps they have a hard time distinguishing the two because although the public and correct view is that torture is wrong we failed to apply that standard. Whether MPs acted out on their own or received orders from MI (one MP said s/he couldn't recite the chain of command) doesn't change the administrative problems that either allowed these acts to happen or encouraged them.

I actually hesitate to say torture is against policy while we hold people without trial and export them.



Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence this week told Congress we don't export anyone. Does the fact that it's not wholesale yet matter?

Yesterday Bush asked Congress for $25 billion in military operations, the first installment for next year in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to control the spending. Sort of. The DoD can transfer any amount as long as the White House gives Congress a five day head's up.

We may not know how far up the acts were condoned yet, but I don't want Rumsfeld, the man responsible for losing control of the troops, the man who decided not to inform Congress or the president of how bad things really were, have carte blanche to run pet projects. Neglecting to read the Taguba report when it first came out reveals much about his priorities.

That's fallacious, and I've never made sense of it; we rail against Americans because we have some say in the matter; when Saddam was in power, I could go hoarse saying Saddam was an evil man and should change, but would that change ANYTHING? No, Saddam didn't care what an 18 year old in Missouri thought.

We rail against Americans, and incapable, clueless leadership, because we CAN change something. We can vote them out in November, and we can maybe, maybe, convince our neighbors to do the same.

Maybe that's true, but have you ever thought that if yourself and others like you that share the same goal, constantly look one-sided against the US, it's actually self-defeating? Certainly, statements of the kind Kennedy made may be an attempt by him to merely "rail against America", but is it going to really convince anyone that is not already convinced? I think a little more vocal opposition to the enemies of the US in the world might actually give your side a little more credibility and hence, improve your chances of actually accomplishing your stated goals.

Not a false comparison. That's why I made it.
This scandal has become a symbol of American oppression/transgressions in IRaq.
The reports about the photos revealed yesterday give me the impression that we don't want to claim that the days of rape rooms are over either.

I find it hard to believe that many people are clinging to the belief that it is the few bad apples that are at fault here and that it isn't, as I read somewhere today, the barrel that is bad.

The real question is, is do you think the mistreatment of Iraqi was justified in order to gain intelligence about Iraqi resistance/insurgency/rebel forces?

I think that the administration and the people who ran Abu Ghraib felt that these policies worked toward the greater good, and that degrees of torture to get at intelligence were acceptable, and that the prison conditions should be rough on prisoners in order to soften them up.

It seems unproductive to split hair's over semantics about the term torture chamber.
As I posted previous I don't think our officials want to get into "we're not that bad, we didn't rape, we just coerced prisoners into sexual positions, sexual play, and some sexual conduct. that's not rape."

Actually we have 'allegations' fom 19 prisons and dozens of incidents outside prisons. The US military is conducting active investigations into 10 murders of POWs and dozens of cases of abuse in prisons across Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kimmet himself has admitted that reports of abuses are widespread:

"Is there any indication that similar actions may have happened at other prisons? I'd like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we know that there have been other ones since we've been here in Iraq,” says Kimmitt."
(CBSNEWS Online, April 29th)

Bremmer has stated that in-depth investigations are underway into prisoner abuses at Umm Qasr, Airport, Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib Prisons, among others.

The 60 Minutes report that started all this showed evidence of abuses at both Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca.

Since one of your main complaints against Kennedy's remarks resulted from your mistaken impression that these cases originated at just one prison, have you now changed your mind?



Oh PLEASE. If this level of semantics is really what you object to, I assume you are equally filled with vitriol towards the occasionally-not-completely-specific comments of every polititian alive?

Firstly, your conclusions are not correct. Not to turn this into a grammer lesson, but unspecificity does not mean majority. The statement 'People in Iraq are being tortured by US troops' does not imply all troops, or all Iraqis, or most troops, or one troop, or thousands of troops torturing one Iraqi... All it means is that people in Iraq are being tortured by US soldiers. If you read anything more into it then the odds are that bias comes from you, rather than from the actual statements made.

Kennedy was decrying the fact that people are being tortured in Iraq by US forces. Period. He was VERY justified in doing so.

I say again, perhaps he did use flowerly language, and perhaps he was not as incredibly unalterably specific as he could be, which makes him as gulty as EVERY politician in the modern and ancient world.


EDIT to add:



In particular since that discussion seems to be moot; it has become clear today from statements made by Senators and Representatives (Democratic AND Republican) who have seen all the pictures that there are very clear cases of homosexual rape among the charges, some of which are documented in pictures and film.

Get the facts straight, please. There are no photos of 'homosexual rape' or rape of any kind.

The senators themselves (such as D-Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and R-Senator McCain of Arizona, so you have two senators from both sides of the aisle), who have viewed the photos, say there are no such rape acts in them.

Since your opinion seems to be in disagreement with every major news site I can find, perhaps you would be so kind as to source the 'facts' you say I have wrong?

I don't see Kerry as being responsible for what Kennedy says. They are both independent adults doing their politics as they see fit. It'd be like expecting the candidate GWB to apologize for something a Republican senator from Texas said. You can only appologize for something you have control over.

Is Kennedy the front man for Kerry's campaign? I haven't been watching that closely for a while, so maybe that went right past me. Well, let's say Kennedy is the front man - do the comments reflect poorly on Kerry?

Well, I suppose Kerry could draw Kennedy aside and ask him to tone down the rhetoric while sticking to the facts. Or maybe he wants Kennedy to do the hyperbole for awhile, deflecting the outrage from the right. I don't think it reflects poorly on Kerry because I'm not sure what the political strategy here is. All I know is that Kerry supporters don't mind while Bush supporters are outraged.

Anybody surprised at that?

What part about that sentence isn't true? Was it not formerly Hussein's? Is it now under our management? Is it under the Brits or some other nation that makes the statement false? Americans are incapable of torture? We only get this kind of result when NGOs like the Red Cross and Amnesty International are denied access to inmates.