Why the Allen West torture incident matters and is 100% fair game
(This was originally a response in another post questioning why Murphy raised the issue of Allen West's torture incident in Iraq, but I feel as though it deserves its own thread.)
(The story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/allen-west-military-attack-ad_n_1932571.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012)
It epitomizes the man's true character. It shows that even back in 2003, the man was a powderkeg with extremely poor judgment. It shows that the man has little respect for the basic rights of his fellow human being and will do anything or say anything regardless of the actual truth in the situation.
The Army had military intelligence officers that could have handled the Yahya Hamoodi situation. Mr. West instead chose to take it upon himself to commandeer the situation. He oversaw his men beating a detainnee. He told Mr. Hamoodi that he was going to kill him. He then shoved the man's head into a bucket and fired a gun next to his ear, which he admits was done in anger. Not surprisingly, the information that Mr. Hamoodi blurted out in fear for his life was bogus, as is often the case in situations involving torture.
Is Brave Sir Allen ashamed of this shameful incident? Does he express remorse for unquestionably causing an innocent man great emotional distress? No. He is unapologetic. He feeds on the notion perpetuated by others that he is some sort of war hero for what he did. Even though you know it eats at him constantly that he was forced to hastily retire and cut his military career short. You have to know the man is burning with rage because of that fact.
So are we surprised that the behavior of Allen West the Lieutenant Colonel foreshadowed the behavior of Allen West the Congressman? Well, we shouldn't be.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz offers a very mild and indirect critique of West in a floor speech where she alludes (without mentioning his name) he supports the Ryan Medicare plan despite having such a large senior population in his district. His response is to send an unhinged, virtiolic email to Representative Wasserman Schultz where he calls her "vile," "disgusting" and "not a lady." He also chooses to to copy the entire house leadership on this ridiculous rant.
The fact that he has never met Representative Keith Ellison does not prohibit him from calling him the "antithesis of the principles on which this nation was founded." And it's pretty obvious why he sends this low blow--for no reason other than the man's religion was different from his own, and he somehow feels threatened by it.
He claims that people with "Co-Exist" bumper stickers "want to give away this country." He claims that people with Obama bumper stickers "represent a threat to the gene pool." Anyone who dares to disagree with Brave Sir Allen cannot only be disagreed with; they must be ridiculed, hated and called every name in the book.
He claims that 80 of his fellow colleagues are card carrying members of the Communist Party. What facts does he have to support this shocking position? No facts. He doesn't need facts to say things. All he needs to do is shove their heads in the proverbial bucket, shoot off his gun, and if turns out he was wrong, no apologies--he's just being a patriot.
When someone shows you who they really are, believe them. And Allen West told us who he was back on that fateful day in 2003.
= new reply since forum marked as read
