More from Chris Shays: "Abu Ghraib was not torture"

[Joe Republic]

Not quite sure what's happening to Chris Shays.  He's gone from being one of my favorite Republicans by far to some kooky nut whose comments get more wild and outlandish each day.


Link


Shays: Abu Ghraib Abuses Were Sex Ring

Oct 13 11:15 AM US/Eastern


Republican Rep. Christopher Shays says the Abu Ghraib prison abuses weren't torture but instead involved a "sex ring" of National Guard troops.

"Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture," Shays said at a debate Wednesday.

 "It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked," added Shays. "And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."

The lawmaker's comments were in a transcript of the debate provided by his opponent, Diane Farrell. Shays' campaign, contacted Friday, did not dispute the comments.

The congressman had been asked what the government should do to restore the nation's moral image in the wake of torture accusations at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.

Shays is waging a bruising re-election fight against Farrell, who had no immediate comment Friday on her opponent's remarks.

Shays stirred controversy recently when he defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy was involved.

Abu Ghraib is the Baghdad prison where abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers led to an international scandal.

Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were brutalized and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence agents in the fall of 2003. At least 11 U.S. soldiers have been convicted in the scandal.

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The sad thing is, he's the most liberal House Republican.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does he want to lose reelection? You'd expect him to be running away from Bush now, not making lame defense and apologies for him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does he want to lose reelection? You'd expect him to be running away from Bush now, not making lame defense and apologies for him.

That's the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans know to toe the line. Rep. King (NY-03) says some pretty crazy sh**t too. Reynolds (NY-26) is quite obnoxious too. These are all in competitive districts, but they have a spine anyways. Meanwhile, we're stuck with at best uninspiring moderates at worst backstabbers in many of our marginal (and even not marginal) districts.

The fact is the Republican strategy is a winner, and it's only because of a huge shift in the national mood against their pathetic leadership that they might lose Congress.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You know, until he started saying these... strange... things... I thought he'd be able to buck the trend this year.

[© tweed]

the hack must go.  I feel vindicated.  Every Republican member of congress (except for Orrin Hatch) should go.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the hack must go.  I feel vindicated.  Every Republican member of congress (except for Orrin Hatch) should go.

Why not Hatch? Comedy relief?

[© tweed]

I like him.  I originally had a reason but I forget why.  He's the only Republican I've endorsed this year for congress and one of two nationally (also Douglas in VT).

[dazzleman]

the hack must go.  I feel vindicated.  Every Republican member of congress (except for Orrin Hatch) should go.

.......right.....what are you smoking these days, Tweed?

[NewFederalist]

As I recall Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy are the best of friends. That might be why Boss gives Orrin a "pass".

[Joe Republic]

Orrin Hatch?!  He's one of my least favorite Senate Republicans, mainly due to his pipedream of banning the internet.

[Cubby]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I think "better than Saddam Hussein" isn't much of a moral standard. The US should aim much higher.

[Smash255]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I think "better than Saddam Hussein" isn't much of a moral standard. The US should aim much higher.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I think "better than Saddam Hussein" isn't much of a moral standard. The US should aim much higher.

Not to mention that I'm not sure that the Iraqis are actually better off than under Saddam. There are estimates of over 100,000 Iraqis dead because of the US invasion.

We have lost all of our moral authority.

This war would have ended long ago, except that they've avoided using a draft. A lot of chickenhawk warmongers would be singing a different tune if suddenly it was their ass on the line.

[dazzleman]

I don't give a s&$t about Abu Ghraib.

Don't dodge the issue. Just because a congressman who you like made a stupid remark doesn't mean you can pretend it didn't happen.

As I said, I don't care.  I consider it a very minor issue.  Things like that are inevitable with a war.  Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib under us was a lot better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

I think "better than Saddam Hussein" isn't much of a moral standard. The US should aim much higher.

Not to mention that I'm not sure that the Iraqis are actually better off than under Saddam. There are estimates of over 100,000 Iraqis dead because of the US invasion.

We have lost all of our moral authority.

This war would have ended long ago, except that they've avoided using a draft. A lot of chickenhawk warmongers would be singing a different tune if suddenly it was their ass on the line.

So you're saying it would have been better to use greater force?

Interesting, coming from you.  And unexpected.  Finally, something you may be right about.

I'm surprised you didn't use the estimate of 655,000 Iraqis killed by our invasion that was floating around last week.  I'd say most of them were killed by other Iraqis.  Does anybody have any statistics on how many people Saddam was killing on an ongoing basis to stay in power?

I understand your point, though.  Just be careful not to argue the issue from both sides.  Our mistake was (a) not enough force at the outset of the occupation to keep things under control; and (b) assuming that Iraq was ready to handle freedom of some sort.  What we've learned largely is that people in the middle east are so consumed with hate that they'll use the freedom they get to kill each other, rather than build a positive society.  I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their freedom, though there are many aspects of the situation we may have handled better.  The murderer is still responsible for his crime, even if the police bungled the investigation.

[nlm]

 Our mistake was (a) not enough force at the outset of the occupation to keep things under control; and (b) assuming that Iraq was ready to handle freedom of some sort.  What we've learned largely is that people in the middle east are so consumed with hate that they'll use the freedom they get to kill each other, rather than build a positive society.  I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their freedom, though there are many aspects of the situation we may have handled better.

You seem surprised that a destabilized environment complete with roving death squads, daily sectarian violence, loss of basic services, etc. would result in what has happened in Iraq. You really shouldn't be. This isn't to be layed at the feet of people "filled with hate" - that's just as easy rationalization of the same caliber as "they hate us because of our freedom" - nor is what we have provided them with anything close to the kind of freedom needed to achieve a peaceful society. We have given them anarchy, and while some would call that the ultimate freedom - I doubt their are many folks in western democracies longing for anarchy.

Thus, it would be better to say - "I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their anarchy" - which is true, we can only be blamed for some of it and for giving it to them to begin with.

[dazzleman]

 Our mistake was (a) not enough force at the outset of the occupation to keep things under control; and (b) assuming that Iraq was ready to handle freedom of some sort.  What we've learned largely is that people in the middle east are so consumed with hate that they'll use the freedom they get to kill each other, rather than build a positive society.  I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their freedom, though there are many aspects of the situation we may have handled better.

You seem surprised that a destabilized environment complete with roving death squads, daily sectarian violence, loss of basic services, etc. would result in what has happened in Iraq. You really shouldn't be. This isn't to be layed at the feet of people "filled with hate" - that's just as easy rationalization of the same caliber as "they hate us because of our freedom" - nor is what we have provided them with anything close to the kind of freedom needed to achieve a peaceful society. We have given them anarchy, and while some would call that the ultimate freedom - I doubt their are many folks in western democracies longing for anarchy.

Thus, it would be better to say - "I don't think that we can be fully blamed for what they have chosen to do with their anarchy" - which is true, we can only be blamed for some of it and for giving it to them to begin with.

Well, we seem to differ as to degree of blame.  You speak of roving death squads as if they are an inevitable part of life.  They wouldn't be if people didn't join them.  We have freedom here, without roving death squads or sectarian violence.  Why is that?

I think that people who join the death squads, or murder people simply because they belong to a different sect of the religion of peace, bear the primary blame for the situation, though we have some secondary blame for not getting the situation in hand.

Freedom is never given, only taken.  We created a situation where they could take freedom.  What they have done with it is their responsibility.

You say that I rationalize, but you seem all too eager to use a blame America first attitude to rationalize away ugly atrocities committed by middle eastern people.

[nlm]

Blame America first - another classic cliche used to avoid accountability.

We created the anarchy that exists there - are you saying we didn't? Do you think any state composed of 3 groups long at odds would have faired differently if an outside force created a power vacuum, allowed the police forces to be replaced by death squads that leave mulitalted bodies in the streets, deprived the people of basic services like water/sewer/electricity, and created an environment where they can not go get food, send their children to school or go to religious services without fearing for their lives. Middle Eastern or otherwise, the planning we used could lead no where else than anarchy. For that, we are to blame (1st, 2nd or 3rd) because their is nobody else that is responsible for our choices than us (though you seem to be trying to make the case that it is the Iraqi people fault we botched this so badly and choose to plan this so poorly).

We choose those things for them, they didn't choose to throw their nation into anarchy - I wish they had, but they didn't. They didn't choose to "take" their freedom before or after our war and we haven't brought them freedom or given them some great opportunity. We have only given them anarchy. If they wanted freedom I submit that it would have been no harder for them to gain that by revolting against the pathetically weakened rule of Saddam as it will be for them to gain it from the mess we have created for them.

Blame America 1st - how about simply assign responsability where it belongs. Or is anybody that would assign accountability to us blaming America 1st in your book.

What they have done with the anarchy we have given is partially their fault - but that we gave them anarchy is our fault. Do you disagree?

And it is not as if the sectarian violence that is and has been occuring was not well forcast prior to this invasion - it was simply dismissed by the people making the plans for the invasion. Whose fault is that the obvious was ignored by us - the Iraqi people? Stupidity on the part of our leadership isn't an excuse - it may well be the reason, but it isn't an excuse.

[Colin]

Okay away from Dazzleman and back to Shays.

Why the hell would he say this sh**t? Seriously does he want to lose? I really considered the man to be above this and I've always thought of him as one of my favourites in the House, but a sex ring? Come on. Has he been blackmailed into saying stupid sh**t? Has he gotten late night phone calls from the President saying that he'll use his one presidential assasination if he does lose or say batsh**t insane sound bites?

[Nym90]

This is a real shame. Overall Shays has been one of my favorite Republicans, but I can't say I continue to approve of him.

This also can't be helping his reelection bid.

[Democratic Hawk]

If Shays loses, I'll shed buckets .... of tears of joy, that is

Dave