The thing is that Allen West is - no joke, no hyperbole - a fucking war criminal. He essentially conducted a mock execution, which is the kind of thing Japanese soldiers were hanged for doing to Americans.
The best part? The man West terrorized was almost certainly innocent. He should have been in Leavenworth instead of Congress.
Colonel Weest's interpersonal skills didn't improve much afterward, what his birtherism and near-constant parade of horseshit.
And leads to why he's no longer in office. He had an incredibly safe seat. He lost because that seat was redistricted out of existence, which seems like an unfortunate, but common experience, until you consider that the redistricting was done by Florida's Republican legislature and signed off on by Governor Rick Scott.
From what I've read, Col. West may have gone just a little bit Col. Kurtz, but what he did actually ended up saving a lot of lives in his unit. And if horseshit is a problem for you, then the king of it is sitting in the White House right now.
"While serving in Taji, Iraq, West received information from an intelligence specialist about a plot to ambush his unit. The alleged plot reportedly involved Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, an Iraqi police officer. West had his men detain Hamoodi. Soldiers testified that in the process of detaining Hamoodi, he appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued. Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 2/20th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body. West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi's head, after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as "meaningless information induced by fear and pain." At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found. West said "At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."
That's the Wikipedia summary of the event. The fact is that the incident didn't save a single life. Not one.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that committing war crimes can save lives, even though West just happened to be singularly bad at it. I'm not arguing that. But so what? They're still war crimes, and they're war crimes for a reason.
Ultimately, if the American people want to reward war criminals with legislative careers and endless hit on cable news, they lose some moral authority when it comes to bitching about war crimes being committed against them.
Also, the retarded Kid N' Play haircut is about 25 years out of style. Every time I see him on Fox News, I half expect him to start shouting, "I am Gumby, dammit!"
Seriously? You're going to start making claims of fact based on a wikipedia entry? Well, if you can't trust a wikipedia report of what an Iraqi insurgent claimed, what can you trust?
Here's a contemporaneous report from CNN that says something different: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/
And here's the relevant part from a contemporaneous New York Times article, that West cooperated with;
"At least one man named by Mr. Hamoodi was taken into custody, according to testimony, and his home was searched. No plans for attacks on Americans or weapons were found. Colonel West testified that he did not know whether ''any corroboration'' of a plot was ever found, adding: ''At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi.''
(...)
After the interrogation, Colonel West woke up his superior officer to recount what had occurred. The superior officer testified that he did not remember Colonel West's offering specifics, beyond saying that he had discharged his weapon during an interrogation and that no one was hurt.
Indeed, it is possible that the abusive interrogation might never have come to light if a sergeant in another battalion had not subsequently written a letter of complaint about the ''command climate'' under Colonel West's superior officer. In that letter, the sergeant mentioned almost as an aside, according to Mr. Puckett, that Colonel West had interrogated a detainee using a pistol. An investigation was set in motion."
The fact that he didn't fully brief his superior officer about an interrogation where a beating occurred and a firearm was discharged could and seemingly was indicative of consciousness of guilt.
And meanwhile the actual point of this, that criticism of a politician who isn't white doesn't automatically make someone a racist, is getting lost because why...? Stop fixating on West!
6 comments:
The thing is that Allen West is - no joke, no hyperbole - a fucking war criminal. He essentially conducted a mock execution, which is the kind of thing Japanese soldiers were hanged for doing to Americans.
The best part? The man West terrorized was almost certainly innocent. He should have been in Leavenworth instead of Congress.
Colonel Weest's interpersonal skills didn't improve much afterward, what his birtherism and near-constant parade of horseshit.
And leads to why he's no longer in office. He had an incredibly safe seat. He lost because that seat was redistricted out of existence, which seems like an unfortunate, but common experience, until you consider that the redistricting was done by Florida's Republican legislature and signed off on by Governor Rick Scott.
From what I've read, Col. West may have gone just a little bit Col. Kurtz, but what he did actually ended up saving a lot of lives in his unit. And if horseshit is a problem for you, then the king of it is sitting in the White House right now.
"While serving in Taji, Iraq, West received information from an intelligence specialist about a plot to ambush his unit. The alleged plot reportedly involved Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, an Iraqi police officer. West had his men detain Hamoodi. Soldiers testified that in the process of detaining Hamoodi, he appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued. Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 2/20th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body. West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi's head, after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as "meaningless information induced by fear and pain." At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found. West said "At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."
That's the Wikipedia summary of the event. The fact is that the incident didn't save a single life. Not one.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that committing war crimes can save lives, even though West just happened to be singularly bad at it. I'm not arguing that. But so what? They're still war crimes, and they're war crimes for a reason.
Ultimately, if the American people want to reward war criminals with legislative careers and endless hit on cable news, they lose some moral authority when it comes to bitching about war crimes being committed against them.
Also, the retarded Kid N' Play haircut is about 25 years out of style. Every time I see him on Fox News, I half expect him to start shouting, "I am Gumby, dammit!"
Seriously? You're going to start making claims of fact based on a wikipedia entry? Well, if you can't trust a wikipedia report of what an Iraqi insurgent claimed, what can you trust?
Here's a contemporaneous report from CNN that says something different: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/
And here's the relevant part from a contemporaneous New York Times article, that West cooperated with;
"At least one man named by Mr. Hamoodi was taken into custody, according to testimony, and his home was searched. No plans for attacks on Americans or weapons were found. Colonel West testified that he did not know whether ''any corroboration'' of a plot was ever found, adding: ''At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi.''
(...)
After the interrogation, Colonel West woke up his superior officer to recount what had occurred. The superior officer testified that he did not remember Colonel West's offering specifics, beyond saying that he had discharged his weapon during an interrogation and that no one was hurt.
Indeed, it is possible that the abusive interrogation might never have come to light if a sergeant in another battalion had not subsequently written a letter of complaint about the ''command climate'' under Colonel West's superior officer. In that letter, the sergeant mentioned almost as an aside, according to Mr. Puckett, that Colonel West had interrogated a detainee using a pistol. An investigation was set in motion."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/world/struggle-for-iraq-interrogations-colonel-risked-his-career-menacing-detainee.html?pagewanted=all
The fact that he didn't fully brief his superior officer about an interrogation where a beating occurred and a firearm was discharged could and seemingly was indicative of consciousness of guilt.
And meanwhile the actual point of this, that criticism of a politician who isn't white doesn't automatically make someone a racist, is getting lost because why...? Stop fixating on West!
Post a Comment