WASHINGTON - Members of Congress said Wednesday that new photographs and video clips of U.S. soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners were even worse than they had expected, depicting “disgusting” and “appalling” instances of torture and humiliation.

“I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining, and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of several members of Congress who emerged grim-faced from lawmakers-only screenings in the Capitol building. “Take the worst case and multiply it several times over.”

“I don’t know how the hell these people got into our Army,” said Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/

I would expect nothing less from politicians, they would have never said,"Not bad, could have done better."

For these politicians to run out and proclaim the pictures as anything but evidence is like a paramedic walking up to a patient and saying" Oh my God your going to die."

These lawmakes should have declined comment on the pictures instead of trying to politicize the evidence against the soldiers. All they have done is to keep this on the front page another day putting more Americans at risk. The terrorist see the reaction and once again they can kill another and claim retaliation.

Oh lord. Give me a break

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Oh lord. Give me a break

I figured even you would see the logic in the post. I used your ideas that the terrorist were justified in killing as revenge and just applied it to more horrific pictures. I guess even your views don't make sense to you.

BTW go to this link who is Beirut_Veteran? (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5478)

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I figured even you would see the logic in the post. I used your ideas that the terrorist were justified in killing as revenge and just applied it to more horrific pictures. I guess even your views don't make sense to you.

BTW go to this link who is Beirut_Veteran? (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5478)

Actually they do make sense. You are just too blind to see them.

Generalization about all the things we have talked about: I have talked about these issues before, in threads you haven't been in. I've grown tired of saying them again and again. I refuse to do it with you, now.

Please, you are just annoying. I dislike the way you argue, it's as if you believe your experience in the army and your age is "holy" and you are "above" everyone here.

Press is free. I would not have it any other way.

Lets hope they don't release any more of those photos.

The more testimony I hear the more I wonder just how guilty the soldiers really are in reality.

Taguba said: “Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision. Supervisory omission was rampant.”

That is a stunning statement. If this is true, and I'm sure it is , then the issue runs deep - it means that the planning for the occupation is a total mess. If this is so screwed up - what else is screwed up. This ultimately leads to one guy - Rummy. He planned the war & the occupation & must take responsibility for it.

I hope they don't ignore the real questions, throw the soldiers in jail and call it problem solved. Rummy's can take as many trips as he wants to Iraq - but it doesn't change the fundamental question about how such a failure of leadership could be allowed to occur.

Rummy said "The system is working" - sure, so if CBS had agreed to not show the photo's - then there would be no court martials & by default it would mean the system would be broken. You learn a new thing everyday - today I learned that CBS is the deciding factor on the effectiveness of the Pentagons "system"

I think these Pentagon guys control nuclear weapons too - scary.

Originally posted by DrewM
I hope they don't ignore the real questions, throw the soldiers in jail and call it problem solved.

Unfortunately, that's seems to be the only thing the military is good at - turning on its own to protect itself.

The Iraqi Abuse photos that have not yet been released will turn publican opinion against the war. Bush's approval rating has gone below 50%, and will only grow lower. The Iraq war has been handled in the worst way. We have over-killed the civilians. 10,700+ is way to many lives lost. We torture their civilians, and it has been reported in many prisons around Iraq. Not to mention, “Take the worst case and multiply it several times over.” That just shows you how crude these images really are.

To say, “we expect nothing less” from politicians is just a sad excuse, to try and make these images less horrific. President Bush was deeply appalled, and Rumsfield even said they were unbelievable. So if you really do support Bush, you might want to trust his judgment.

Many people, as I’ve read on this board believe that the be-heading of our American civilian should be more important. Well I disagree. We expect this from them, we don’t expect this torture from our own troops. We will never stop the actions they perform, but we can stop the actions our troops perform.

It’s almost appalling that these tortures happened in the same prisons Saddam tortured his civilians.

The Arab world is displeased with America’s handling of the Iraq war, let alone the majority of Americans.

Yes they wanted the liberation, but we aren’t doing a good job, in making their lives any easier. This war is not stopping terrorism…with no official link to terrorism. We are supposed to be avenging 9/11 not liberating the world. Iraq was no threat to Americans. The UN found no WMD’s in Iraq, furthering the fact that we are not making America safer by being in Iraq.

I’ve been on many Arab news sites, and they say that these abuse images will be used to recruit more terrorists for America. This Iraq war will only bring us more hate, and struggle.

DansantCaparet - welcome to AllForums.

You make a lot of good points. There is no question that the post war Iraq period has been a total and utter shambles. Instead of making America more safe (which is the only reason to use the Military) - we are certainly in a much worse situation regarding terrorist threats.

The only solution at this stage is Bush out and somebody else in so we can change direction. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had - and that's coming from a Bush supporter. It's a shame that the alternative to Bush is Kerry - but at this stage of the game I'd take pretty much anybody other than Bush and his gang.

I hope John McCain takes the running mate slot.

John McCain would be the best choice. It would get Middle America on board with Kerry. He would have the election won...for sure.

McCain has already said he wouldn't. But Kerry has said that he'd make a good Secretary of Defense: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/192880p-166663c.html

DansantCaparet

Great post and welcome to the forums.

I'm praying McCain does a flip-flop and ends up on the ticket. Can you say 'Landslide'.

Dop

then if something happens to kerry you got a republican president again. macawful will never alow it. that partisan hack. but if kerry were to win, I would want mcain there too at least, to give the adminstration at least some balls.

Originally posted by DrewM
Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had - and that's coming from a Bush supporter.

with supporters like you who needs opponenets? why ever try to pass yourself off as a suporter anymore? al you do is bash the guy and post links after link trying to make our military look like shit. why dont you just jump on the kerry bandwagon already and end it. quit trying to pretend you are a bush supporter just so it gives every attack you make on him some kind of perverted validity.

Originally posted by Travh20
then if something happens to kerry you got a republican president again. macawful will never alow it. that partisan hack. but if kerry were to win, I would want mcain there too at least, to give the adminstration at least some balls.

And your Administration is better? President Bush having balls? Cheney having balls? Rumsfield having balls?

President Bush was in the army, and joined the National Guard right before the war. So he was A.W.O.L. Cheney said he had “More important priorities” during the Vietnam War, so in return he didn’t go. Rumsfield didn’t go, for who knows why.

Kerry went, and regardless of how many medals and ribbons he got, he did more then all three of them.

I really wonder who has more “balls”. Anyone with any common sense would trust Kerry’s judgment of war more then Bush’s, since he actually went.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm praying McCain does a flip-flop and ends up on the ticket. Can you say 'Landslide'.

Probably would be. I wanted McCain to win the Republican nomination so badly. But I'm not sure if that would sway me or not. The VP doesn't really do anything. Except for in the Bush administration.

I was rooting for McCain also back in the primaries against Bush. He is infinitely more capable than Bush could even dream of being.

I know many democrats who love McCain...and would have voted for him over Gore. But sadly, Bush got it...and now they will never vote Republican again.

I would vote for McCain as well. He is one of the few politicians that comes across as honest. It's probably an illusion but at least he's good at it.

mcain is anti abortion. are you wqilling to abaondon your principles to regain power? of course you are. At least if mcain was VP we would have an honorable veteran in the admin, one that didnt stab his "brothers" in the back when he got back to the states, and put on shameless publicity stnts like throwing his ribbons, or medals or whatever over the fence, then magically havin g them to display on his wall now.

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. This will put things in perspective:)

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on
terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement
claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!



I'm new to this forum, just looking for some opinions. From the looks of what I've already read, I think I may have come to the right place.....

Just last month, it was the deadliest month of all, in this war. So actually this war has just begun, and it is going to be one of the longest wars in history. Our military officials say it's going to take 30 years....so really, this is going to be a long, drawn out war for America to handle alone