Senator Inhofe -
I MUST, MUST, MUST as both a rhetorician and American citizen express my absolute disgust at what I heard you say over the radio this morning. In this message, I will interrupt your statements with brief attempts at moving the debate toward productive policies for our soldiers and for America's future.
SEN. INHOFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I -- well, first of all, I regret I wasn't here on Friday. I was unable to be here. But maybe it's better that I wasn't, because as I watched the -- this outrage, this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners, I was, I have to say -- and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment. The idea that these prisoners -- you know, they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cell block 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents.
Of course, the Red Cross is suggesting that
somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the prisoners in in Iraq "had been arrested by mistake." Whether this startling rate applies to those within the cell blocks you cite here is, I suppose, an open question. Perhaps we ought to begin legal processes to ensure that we are, in fact, dealing with "murderers, terrorists, and insurgents." And perhaps we ought to take steps to ensure that our behavior is so distinct from that of our enemies, that it does not invite comparisons.
Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.
Yes, Senator, we are. And it's because of that "probably." You see, given the way things have played out so far, there's a good chance that some do not have American blood on their hands. And we are particularly concerned that innocent people are being tortured, though torturing the guilty can also prove quite problematic.
And 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.
So the rule is that we must never
politicize the war, yes? And I really, really, really hope that your "seven bad apples" theory is correct. Again,
the Red Cross's reports have me worried. And this last article is from the right-leaning
Washington Times.
I would share with my colleagues a solicitation that was made. I'm going to read the first two sentences. "Over the past week, we've all been shocked by the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But we have also been appalled at the slow and inept response by President Bush, which has further undermined America's credibility." And it goes on to demand that George Bush fire Donald Rumsfeld. And then it goes on to a timeline, a chronology, and at the very last it makes a solicitation for contributions. I don't recall this ever having happened before in history.
This professor writes, "antecedent unclear."
Which never happened before? The abuses under U.S. command and the slow and inept response? Or the solicitation? Perhaps the latter is now happening for the first time because the former happened. In other words, the extreme failures of the Bush administration in Iraq are prompting an extreme response. And, Senator, are you sure,
are you very sure, that
you are not playing politics? In the interests of full disclosure, let my acknowledge that
I am playing politics. I think your constituents should fire you for what you said today. And I think that your departure from the Senate would lead to better arguments and a better America.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this solicitation be made a part of the record at this point.
SEN. WARNER: Without objection.
SEN. INHOFE: Mr. Chairman, 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.
This argument canned be summed up thusly: "AMERICA: we're not as bad as Saddam!" Has it really come to this? Is a member of the United States Senate seriously suggesting that we are to be congratulated because, unlike Saddam, we didn't drill holes in people's hands?
The point, Senator, is for our actions to bespeak our values, and for America's behavior to consistently reflect the highest standards. This is central to our claims that we are bringing freedom, democracy, and better lives to the Iraqi people, who have had more than their share of cruel treatment to date. And let's observe that the brutality of Saddam Hussein has been entered into the Congressional Record many times before. There is no real lack of awareness of Saddam's brutality. What is occurring here is your attempt to diminish expressions of shock and disappointment over U.S. actions by contrasting the U.S. actions with some of the worst behavior in human history. Yes, Saddam was worse, much worse. This in no way excuses our failures.
SEN. WARNER: Without objection, so ordered.
SEN. INHOFE: 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.
So preventing human rights violations should start
when, Senator? Aren't the soldiers in Iraq to
end the long history of human rights violations in Iraq? Is it your view that human rights are a luxury, to be suspended or ignored whenever the going gets tough?
And I just don't think we can take seven -- seven bad people. There are some 700 guards in Abu Ghraib. There are some 25 other prisons, about 15,000 guards all together, and seven of them did things they shouldn't have done and they're being punished for that.
But what about some 300,000 troops have been rotating through all this time and they have -- all the stories of valor are there.
And it is precisely for this reason that we are critical of mistreatment of POWs. America's sons and daughters are sacrificing their lives in pursuit of a better Iraq. The actions of the captors at Abu Ghraib have made the tasks of those who play by the rules significantly more difficult, and increased the likelihood of these troops encountering violent resistance.
The events at Abu Ghraib have no doubt inflamed the passions of many in Iraq, and have likely converted some Iraqis from support for the occupation to opposition. United States outrage at the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib is occurring precisely because it seems likely that the events in that prison will prompt further bloodshed. Further, Abu Ghraib will be used to speciously "justify" horrific behavior, as
the tragic case of Nick Berg demonstrates.
Now, one comment about Rumsfeld. A lot of them don't like him. And I'm sorry that Senator McCain isn't here, because I just now said to him, "Do you remember back three years ago when Secretary Rumsfeld was up for confirmation, and I said these guys aren't going to like him because he doesn't kowtow to them, he is not easily intimidated." I've never seen Secretary Rumsfeld intimidated. And quite frankly, I can't think of any American today as qualified as Donald Rumsfeld is to prosecute this war.
The sole qualification you've offered in support of your claim is that Rumsfeld refuses to be intimidated. I believe Joseph Hoar, former chief of US Central Command, to be significantly more qualified. Here's a
smart thing he said in March of 2003, before the US attack on Iraq: "Well you know I hope the US Government is correct, that everybody is going to quit, everybody is going to throw down their arms, everybody's going to welcome us as liberators but you know the last time the Iraqis danced in the street was on the 11th September, a year and a half ago." And here's another, "The forces are really somewhat light on the ground if this thing loses its momentum in a fight before Baghdad. The fact of the matter is that infantry formations fighting in cities have to be relieved about every two days because of the fatigue and the casualties.
All of a sudden you start eating up folks in a real hurry and I'm not so sure how many days you could do that with the number of forces that are available today."
It seems Hoar had a much better sense of where things were headed in Iraq than Rumsfeld. Might Hoar be available?
Now -- oh, one other thing. All the idea about these pictures. I would suggest to you any pictures -- and I think maybe we should get direction from this committee, Mr. Chairman, that if pictures are authorized to be disseminated among the public, that for every picture of abuse or alleged abuse of prisoners, we have pictures of mass graves, pictures of children being executed, pictures of the four Americans in Baghdad that were burned and their bodies were mutilated and dismembered in public. Let's get the whole picture.
Let's take these in turn. 1.) Because Saddam Hussein killed people and buried them in mass graves, American abuse of Iraqi prisoners is acceptable; 2.) Because Hussein's regime murdered children, American abuse ought to be understood as relatively light; and 3.) Because a mob in Falluja killed and defiled four Americans, anything America does at Abu Ghraib, in the suburbs of Baghdad (short of killing and defiling corpses?!!?) should be seen as a reasonable consequence of this horrific event. None of these arguments plausibly links actions by the prisoners to the consequences they faced at our hands. Rather, the arguments suggest that our behavior is somehow warranted because terrible things have happened in Iraq. Ought not our unwavering commitment be to ending this sad history?
So, yes, Senator, my outrage over American abuse is measurably greater than the deep sickness and sadness I feel when Americans are murdered by terrorists. Why? Because I have learned to expect the very worst from Al Qaeda and its cohorts. I know from bitter experience that these horrible individuals will engage in vile and despicable acts. After the USS Cole, 9/11, Daniel Pearl, the four victims in Falluja, and today, Nick Berg, I am painfully aware of the viciousness and cruelty of Al Qaeda and related terrorists.
But I hope to always be shocked and disappointed when I learn that Americans have turned away from our country's principles, ethics, and values, and compromised our goals in order to extract a measure of vengeance. The standard ought never be whether we are some degree better than Saddam, or the mob in Falluja, or any of the monsters and tyrants who regularly traffic in torture and terrorism.
The standard must be whether we uphold the values and principles for which we were long revered by other nations. At times, this will mean treating others far better than we know they would treat us in parallel circumstances. This requires not being drawn toward the basest impulses of human nature, and not tolerating corruption and cruelty when we encounter them in ourselves.
Sir, I reject your arguments, and plead with you to reconsider your remarks. I implore you to weigh your words more carefully in the future.
The events unfolding in Iraq will have profound consequences for us and for our children. Surely, we can acknowledge this circumstance by conducting serious and reasoned arguments over our own actions and how they relate to the policy goals that will shape America's future.
