May 08, 2004

And the Aye's have it
Posted by McQ

50 House members voted against the following resolution, the vast majority of them Democrats (it passed 365 - 50). Such luminaries as John Conyers, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters submited a 'nay'.

Deploring the abuse of persons in United States custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift justice any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressing the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other purposes.

Anyone care to take a stab at what they found so objectionable that it required a "no" vote?

UPDATE (McQ): My old friend Richard Nickoley brings us proof that apparently Congressman Pete Stark believes he's the smartest congressman in Congress and its proper to respond to a constituent's letter of concern about this vote with a voice mail to that person in which he both curses and insults them. Go listen.

For such a "smart" buy, you'd think he'd know better than to leave a voicemail like this.

TrackBack

Comments

Some members of Congress have never, and will never, vote in favor of a bill perceived to be supportive of the military. They (or at least their core constituents) are deeply anti- when it comes to the American military.

Posted by: George at May 8, 2004 11:29 AM

At some point, McQ, you're going to have to accept the fact the DoD under your conservative bretheren allowed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib to happen. These are atrocities that stain us all.

No amount of trying to point fingers at Democrats will make this go away--no matter how hard you try.

It's called 'leadership,' McQ. It means not only accepting credit when things go right but also accepting responsibility when they don't.

Throughout this entire sickening episode, you've repeatedly tried to place the blame on a few junior enlisted personnel and NCOs. When that didn't erase the stench, you tried to blame Democrats. In every case, you've sought to place or deflect blame away from those who deserve it.

Kevin Drum nailed it.

The conservative response to Abu Ghraib has been fascinating, hasn't it? First reaction: this is horrible and the soldiers involved should have the book thrown at them.

Second reaction: yeah, it's bad, it really is, but it's worth remembering that it's nowhere near as bad as what Saddam did.

Third reaction: enough, enough! Jeez, it's been a whole week. This issue has been hijacked by militant Bush-haters who just want to use it for craven partisan reasons.

Fourth reaction: still to come. Maybe torturers as heroes thanks to testimony from someone or other that one of the scraps of information they extracted saved a convoy somewhere? Hey, war is hell.


Posted by: JadeGold at May 8, 2004 01:31 PM

Obviously, reading up on logical fallacies hasn't been your priority since last we heard from you. That and the fact that it appears you've slept through the last few days (which would explain why you're still flipping those fallacies out there) and have missed the acceptance of responsibilty by the administration for what the soldiers did.

I'm also under the impression that if indeed you did attend a federal military academy, you must have missed the course on UCMJ and how these investigations proceed under its auspices. If you had been aware, then you'd know that this is far from done, and all that will be charged haven't yet been charged.

But then, to acknowledge that would be "inconvenient" to your preconceived notions, wouldn't it?

Posted by: McQ at May 8, 2004 02:18 PM

McQ: The logical fallacies are yours. In fact, we saw Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) attempt the same type of logical fallacy during Rumsfeld's testimony where she condemned the acts "of a few" then went on to speechify about how many Iraqi schools we'd rebuilt.

Kevin Drum nailed it.

WRT UCMJ, since I slept during those classes at the Academy (somehow they let me minor in Law, obviously an oversight), perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me the circumstances which lead you to believe the photos we've seen were not in violation of the UCMJ?

And while you're contemplating an excuse--involving Democrats--would you do me the kindness of telling me why Rumsfeld couldn't answer Sen. McCain's question as to the chain of command from the guards to the Office of SecDef?

Posted by: JadeGold at May 8, 2004 04:18 PM

What in the world are you talking about now? Kay Baily Hutchenson's point about schools has what to do with the administration's acceptance of responsiblity or anything else?

As to the pictures, again, what are you talking about? Of course they're in violation of the UCMJ. What's your point? That wasn't at all what I was talking about. I made the point that the investigations into this aren't DONE. And that more would be charged for what went on at Abu Gharib (as I said in another post, I expect to see some charges lodged against members of the 205th MI Bde).

How'd we get onto the pictures being in violation of the UCMJ and why is that significant as it pertains to my point?

Posted by: McQ at May 8, 2004 04:29 PM