Congressman Pete Stark (D-Fremont CA), you are a moron.

[mhendo]

On May 6, the US House of Representatives passed HR 627 which, among other things, condemned the recent abuses abuses of Iraqi prisoners and called for those responsible to be brought to justice, and reaffirmed the House’s faith in the US Armed Forces more generally.

Pete Stark voted against the resolution, and one of his constituents from California’s 13th District, Staff Sgt. Daniel Dow, wrote a letter to Stark condeming the decision not to support the resolution.

Stark replied with a voicemail message that said:

Dan, this is Congressman ‘Pete’ Stark, and I just got your fax and you don’t know what you’re talking about. So if you care about enlisted people you wouldn’t have voted for that thing, either. But probably somebody put you up to this, and I’m not sure who it was, but I doubt if you could spell half the words in the letter. Somebody wrote it for you so I don’t pay much attention to it, but I’ll call you back later and let you tell me more about why you think you’re such a great G–damn hero and why you think that this general and the defense department who forced these poor enlisted (bitter laughter) guys to do what they should shouldn’t be held to account. That’s the issue. So if you want to stick it to a bunch of enlisted guys have your way, but if you want to get to the bottom of people who forced this awful program in…Iraq, then you should understand more about it than you obviously do. Thanks.

What the fuck?

The House Resolution makes it very clear that not only should the individuals caught in the photos be punished, but that the Army brass should “undertake corrective action to address chain of command deficiencies and the systemic deficiencies identified in the incidents in question.”

It seems very clear to me that the members of the House who voted for the resolution don’t just want to “stick it to a bunch of enlisted guys,” but want everyone involved in this sorry affair to pay the appropriate penalty.

Note: I’m not saying that there was no excuse to vote against the resolution. Some other Democrats voted against it on the grounds that Republicans refused to include a call for investigating civilian contractors. I think that such a call should have been part of the resolution, and that if civilian contractors are involved in this case then they should be subject to similar investigations. I also support the call for investigating the general “command atmosphere” that might have played a part in this case.

And i still think there’s a danger that a few enlisted people will end up being the main scapegoats for this whole affair.

It should also be noted that the guy who wrote the letter, S.Sgt. Dow, is a former Republican candidate for a CA assembly seat, so his letter was likely motivated, at least in part, by the same “partisanship and…politicization” that he accused Stark of.

Still, the main reason for my pitting is Stark’s phone message. Even from a purely practical standpoint, was he stupid enough to believe that a hostile Republican wouldn’t make use of it? What an idiot. And i also think that politicans should at least attempt to represent all their constituents, and Stark’s message was no way to speak to one of the people that you represent.

Transcripts of the letter and the phone message here
Sound file of the voice message here
News stories here and [url=“http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2135994,00.html”].

[mhendo]

Final link fixed:

Here.

[Blalron]

I side with the Congressman here. He believes, and is probably right, that this resolution reflects the wishy washy half measures that will undoubtedly be put into place to deal with this situation and he doesn’t want to be a part of it.

Even if he is wrong, I like how he has the balls to swear like a pirate and ask his constituent why he thinks he’s such a goddamned hero.

[Hyperelastic]

Pete Stark is a fucking tool. I say that as a former constituent who wrote him twice and didn’t even get a form letter in reply.

[county]

@Hyperelastic

Pete Stark is a fucking tool. I say that as a former constituent who wrote him twice and didn’t even get a form letter in reply.

Well, your letters were probably stupid. And, resolutions that say people are going to do what they are suppose to do anyway are definitely stupid.

[buttonjockey308]

Sez mhendo…

It should also be noted that the guy who wrote the letter, S.Sgt. Dow, is a former Republican candidate for a CA assembly seat, so his letter was likely motivated, at least in part, by the same “partisanship and…politicization” that he accused Stark of.

Well, that IS news. When I first heard the tape and quote, I thought this guy was just some random citizen,and the good Senator was being a royal jackhole. Turns out, they’re both just a couple of sucker-assed political hacks with nothing better than to spar in the public eye.

I say…BACK TO WORK! The BOTH OF YOU! You’re on MY dime, dammit! Knock it off, shut up, and get back to work!

[duffer]

@buttonjockey308

Sez mhendo…

Well, that IS news. When I first heard the tape and quote, I thought this guy was just some random citizen,and the good Senator was being a royal jackhole. Turns out, they’re both just a couple of sucker-assed political hacks with nothing better than to spar in the public eye.

I say…BACK TO WORK! The BOTH OF YOU! You’re on MY dime, dammit! Knock it off, shut up, and get back to work!

Um, he’s Representative, not a Senator. Before demanding work from them, make sure you know what they do.

[Mr.Moto]

Fortney Hillman Stark is from the extreme left wing of his party. He cannot be considered a mainstream politician at all.

I, therefore, ceased to be surprised by his antics a long time ago.

[Michael_Ellis]

@county

Well, your letters were probably stupid. And, resolutions that say people are going to do what they are suppose to do anyway are definitely stupid.

Ah, I see county’s up to his usual standard this morning.

[mhendo]

@Blalron

I side with the Congressman here. He believes, and is probably right, that this resolution reflects the wishy washy half measures that will undoubtedly be put into place to deal with this situation and he doesn’t want to be a part of it.

Even if he is wrong, I like how he has the balls to swear like a pirate and ask his constituent why he thinks he’s such a goddamned hero.

As i said in the OP, i think that there were a bunch of good reasons to vote against that Resolution, and i’m still worried that the investigation into the prison abuse will do just what Stark and some of his Democratic colleagues feared–make examples out of a few enlisted troops while ignoring the big picture. Some very intelligent Democrats were among the “no” voters.

This whole scenario actually resembles some sort of personal feud that just happens to have boiled over into the public arena. Given that Dow has run for office as a Republican in California, it wouldn’t surprise me if he and Stark had crossed paths before.

I still think that Stark’s phone message was, at best, ill-advised. Rush Limbaugh is already using it as an example of liberal elitism. and the incident will probably cause conservative knees to jerk all over the country.

I thought it was interesting that not one of the TV news shows that i’ve seen on the story mentions that Dow is a former Republican political candidate. I don’t think that fact really excuses Stark’s conduct, but it does shed more light on Dow’s motivations for writing the letter in the first place.

When Republicans come out and abuse Democrats for political partisanship, all i can think of are pots and kettles.

[Hyperelastic]

@county

Well, your letters were probably stupid. And, resolutions that say people are going to do what they are suppose to do anyway are definitely stupid.

I believe you will find that the United States Code specifically requires Congressmen to answer stupid letters. In fact, they have to answer the stupid ones before they answer the intelligent ones.

[buttonjockey308]

Ok duffer I stand (or rather sit) corrected. MY main point doesn’t change though.

Both of these twits need to…
STOP SCREWING OFF WITH THIS NONSENSE, AND GET BACK TO WORK.

[Largo62]

I tried the link to the actual bill, and it’s expired. Do we know there wasn’t some “poison pill” in the bill that caused Stark to vote nay? If not, he is a jerk. Even Democrat Reps can be jerks. …There! I said it and there wasn’t a single thunderclap!

[county]

@Hyperelastic

I believe you will find that the United States Code specifically requires Congressmen to answer stupid letters. In fact, they have to answer the stupid ones before they answer the intelligent ones.

That is bullshit. I would like to see the citation of the U.S. code that requires answering correspondence. If you want a written answer to a letter to a congressional representative you need to put a statement in the letter that says
“I request a written response” - and even then you may not get one, especially to stupid letters.

[GaWd]

@Hyperelastic

I believe you will find that the United States Code specifically requires Congressmen to answer stupid letters. In fact, they have to answer the stupid ones before they answer the intelligent ones.

Bullshit.

[mhendo]

@DesertGeezer

I tried the link to the actual bill, and it’s expired. Do we know there wasn’t some “poison pill” in the bill that caused Stark to vote nay? If not, he is a jerk. Even Democrat Reps can be jerks. …There! I said it and there wasn’t a single thunderclap!

Sorry.

I forgot that Congressional Record searches on the Thomas website time out after a while. If you want to see the text of the resolution, go to this page and type “hres 627” into the Bill Number box.

You will be taken to a results page, where you should click on the top link, which is the resolution as passed by the House.

As i suggested in my earlier posts, it was not so much what was in the bill, as what was left out, that annoyed some Democratic representatives. I’ll paste below some remarks that i have copied from the online version of the Congressional Record. I’d give a link, but it would just time out like the one above.

(Note: to my knowledge, the Congressional Record is in the public domain, and thus this post should present no copyright problems).

First, here is Congressman Stark’s own statement about his reasons for voting “no” to the resolution:

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to vote no on this resolution. It is right to condemn the brutal and abhorrent abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But, this resolution is not strong enough. Without language authorizing a full-fledged Congressional investigation into this matter, we are failing our responsibility.

Republicans refused to allow any language to be added to this resolution providing for an investigation into these crimes. They have limited our ability to bring those responsible to account for their actions. This is wrong, especially when our ideals have been undermined and our leadership again tarnished throughout the world.

These acts of humiliation, torture and even murder are outrageous. They are a shameful affront to the Iraqi people and those throughout the Arab and Muslim World. As a Nation, we owe the victims of these acts and the Iraqi people a full apology and investigation into how these abhorrent abuses were allowed to occur.

The torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are part of a larger systemic pattern of abuse with which this administration has been complicit. We know–as the Washington Post reported in December, 2002–that prisoners captured in Afghanistan by the U.S. were transferred to other nations to be tortured for information. We already are well acquainted with the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This latest expose of torture and abuse at the Iraqi prison is just one more example of heinous treatment at the hands of our Government.

We trust in the honorable service of our troops. This does not reflect on the Americans bravely serving in Iraq. But, responsibility does lie with those at the very top of leadership and at the feet of this President.

It is time Congress launch an investigation to end these patterns of abuse. If Congress does not act to right this wrong, I do not trust this administration will. We must condemn these acts of torture and abuse. Given that this resolution completely fails to provide Congress with the tools to initiate such investigations, I am forced to vote no.

Here are the comments of Rosa DeLauro, of Connecticut:

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, all Americans were shocked by what we saw at the Abu Ghraib prison. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners offends our values as human beings and as Americans. I am deeply disturbed by the administration’s handling of this issue. A 3-month-old investigation has only now come to light. Some are questioning whether we may have lost control of civilian contractors who fall outside of the military chain of command.

But there is something equally as alarming about this news, the discovery that unregulated private contractors are interrogating prisoners in Iraq on behalf of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

This now becomes a question of accountability. In the fog of war, it is not only our military but also private companies deciding whom to deploy, whom to carry out operations, and how those people are vetted. There is almost no congressional oversight, civil regulation, or military law that governs them. By contracting out these critical tasks to civilian contractors who fall outside of the chain of command, there is no quality assurance, and there is questionable accountability.

The Secretary of Defense has been inattentive and perhaps negligent at great cost to our reputation and our security, and the call for the Secretary of Defense resignation is growing stronger day by day. At the very least, the Republican leadership in this House should convene bipartisan, bicameral congressional hearings to examine this urgent matter.

This reminds us that before we win the hearts and the minds of the Iraqis in this effort, we must win something else, trust, the trust of the American people.

And here’s Lynn Woolsey, from California:

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this resolution be less timid and actually ask for a commission beyond the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely outraged last week when I, along with the rest of the world, learned that U.S. servicemembers and private American contractors in Iraq had abused and tortured Iraqi prisoners of war, and had forced them to commit heinous sexual acts.

War is devastating and terrifying, but even in war there is no place for actions such as these. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq are performing courageously and honorably, upholding the high standards of the U.S. military. But the abuse inflicted by a few soldiers will likely be responsible for much ill will around the world. What’s worse, I fear that it will embolden our enemies to commit further acts of terrorism against the United States.

We must get to the bottom of this scandal, but we must do it in the right way. H . Res . 627 , which will be voted on today, does not adequately address these abuses because it doesn’t go far enough. Instead of encouraging an investigation through the Department of Defense, this resolution should call for congressional investigations to investigate the roles of both servicemembers and private civilian contractors who may have played a role in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war.

The military should not investigate itself in this matter, because we don’t yet know if the military leadership itself bears some responsibility for these atrocities.

There’s more in the Congressional Record, but you get the idea.

I think that there is a good argument to be made that the resolution was a watered-down version of what it might have been, and i have much sympathy for the argument that the military and the Bush administration shouldn’t just be left to investigate themselves.

Obviously, where one comes down on this issue will probably reflect, at least partially, one’s own party-political position.

[mhendo]

And folks, maybe you shouldn’t be so hard on Hyperelastic.

I was under the impression that s/he was just kidding around.

[Captain_Amazing]

@DesertGeezer

I tried the link to the actual bill, and it’s expired.

Here’s a copy of the resolution, in PDF format, that shouldn’t expire:

http://www.house.gov/rules/hres_627.pdf

[ruadh]

@mhendo

And folks, maybe you shouldn’t be so hard on Hyperelastic.

I was under the impression that s/he was just kidding around.

Duh. Even I got that one.

[Largo62]

Thanks, mhendo and Captain Amazing, for filling in the blanks.

As to Stark’s “Nay” vote on the bill, I have to agree with him for the reasons that he gave, but mhendo has a point about the stupidity of the congressman’s telephone reply to Staff Sgt. Daniel Dow. It seems a rather stark (snicker!) contrast to his measured response from the House floor, and unworthy of the congressman. His personal abuse of Dow was uncalled for, if pretty tame. Can we grant that sometimes we leave telephone messages that we wish we hadn’t? I know that in the heat of the moment I’ve posted things in the Pit that I wish I had thought about a little more before hitting “submit”.