Fleischer: Rape of POWs 'not worth mentioning'

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2003 | Les Kinsolving

[Dajjal]

Fleischer: Rape of POWs 'not worth mentioning'

Spokesman fails to address issue of U.S. women held by enemy

---

Posted: March 25, 2003
7:10 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Each week, WorldNetDaily White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asks the tough questions no one else will ask. And each week, WorldNetDaily brings you the transcripts of those dialogues with the president and his spokesman. If you'd like to suggest a question for the White House, submit it to WorldNetDaily's exclusive interactive forum MR. PRESIDENT!

By Les Kinsolving
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

At today's White House news briefing, WND asked presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer about the Iraqis' holding of a female United States soldier as a prisoner of war and how it relates to the issue of women in combat.

WND: Ari, one of the U.S. POWs in Iraq is Shoshana Johnson of Texas, while The New York Times this morning reports that Pfc. Jessica Lynch of West Virginia is missing or captured. And during Desert Storm, Maj. Rhonda Cornum was captured and gang-raped, while the other U.S. female prisoner of war would neither confirm or deny that she, too, was gang-raped. And my question, does the president think that the Iraqi army has somehow changed to avoid the raping of female prisoners?

FLEISCHER: Lester –

WND: Or does he believe that it would be wise –

FLEISCHER: Lester –

WND: – to keep the women out of combat areas?

FLEISCHER: The history of our military is that men and women have served this nation honorably and with distinction. The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here. It's a given that men and women serve our country with dignity, that Saddam Hussein's regime had better not harm our prisoners. The president has made that clear. … Lester, no follow-up.

The Washington Times reported yesterday that Johnson was the first U.S. female held as a POW since the Clinton administration's military leaders repealed a rule barring servicewomen from positions with a high risk of encountering enemy fire or capture.

"It's bad when a man is captured. But if a woman is captured, she doesn't have the same chance [to defend herself] that a man does," Elaine Donnelly, president of the Military Readiness Center, told the paper.

Said retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, "You must consider that women in every society are preyed upon if they are overtaken. ... Now that women are closer to the front lines, they are more subject to becoming captives and being manipulated."

---

Submit a question to the MR. PRESIDENT! forum.

Les Kinsolving is WorldNetDaily’s White House correspondent and a talk-show host for WCBM in Baltimore.

[hocndoc]

You're right that the story of Deborah Sampson is inspiring.
Not all women are capable of serving as soldiers, but then not all men are capable. Although men may be more likely to be capable, due to their their body build and early training.

At this moment in time, women are in the services, serving alongside the men. Speculation and reordering of the troups in the middle of the battle doesn't sound efficient.

This is one of those timese that we should let the experts do what we hired them to do.

[Political Junkie Too]

I was talking about them both to a friend tonight. I suggested that we make a POW swap: if they get rid of Helen Thomas, we'll get rid of Les Kinsolving. It's an even trade -- we'll do it in the middle of any bridge of your choosing.

Forced retirement for them both.

-PJ

[Catspaw]

My point, which, of course, has completely escaped you, is that Kinsolving stepped way over the line with his rape question to Ari, but was too cowardly to ask the question of Johnson's parents face to face.

[AAABEST]

God bless your way with words. You calmly made some very succinct points that I wasn't able to.

I want you to cut that out right now, you Jarheads not authorized to look smarter than us Army types.

;)

[AAABEST]

And you're truly insulting! We don't support the Palestinian leadership; but many of us do feel compassion for the ordinary Palestinian people!

You're insulted? Poor baby. Life sux, buy some raingear.

Your ordinary Palestinian "people" are teaching their children to grow up to be Jew/American hating murderers. Their geography class is taught with a map on which Israel does not exist. 80% of these "people" when polled agree that suicide bombing is a legitimate way of dealing with the Israelis.

You're insulted by a poster on the internet, meanwhile you'll sympathize with murderers and allow our female service members to be dehumanized. Talk about upside down and bass-ackwards.

Typical leftist whack-job.

[William Terrell]

One man's "Yellow Journalism" is WND's..."Journalism."

I've read a lot of posts, including yours, that call WND's headline a lie in various ways. A valid interpretation of the exchange between the reporter and Ari Fleischer is that the rape of POWs isn't worth mentioning. If it were worth mentioning, Fleischer would have given a deeper interview.

The headline is not a lie. The complaints of those who accuse the reporter of lying address why it's not worth mentioning. The headline didn't say "Rape of POW's 'not worth mentioning' because. . ." The clear fact is that Fleischer refused to mention it (read comment on it) and therefore a reasonable person could assume he didn't consider it worth mentioning, whatever the reason he didn't consider it so.

[Illbay]

Saying that it "isn't worth mentioning" is saying that the administration doesn't care.

That IS grossly incorrect.

It would be more accurate to say that it is not proper for discussion.

[xsmommy]

only an idiot would infer that the Administration was callous enough to discount the rape of female servicepeople, based on Ari's answer to that question. of COURSE it wasn't the forum for the discussion.

[William Terrell]

Sure, I can see that point, too.

I read it that the reporter had another question, that being the issue of women in combat situations.

FLEISCHER: The history of our military is that men and women have served this nation honorably and with distinction. The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here. It's a given that men and women serve our country with dignity, that Saddam Hussein's regime had better not harm our prisoners. The president has made that clear. … Lester, no follow-up.

Considering the sentence "The treatment of prisoners by Saddam Hussein is the only point worth mentioning here.", rape is most definitely treatment of prisoners by Saddam, and Ari refused to discuss it beyond political vagueness. Why didn't he make a positive statement? What would have been wrong or insensitive about issuing a statement roundly condeming rape of captured female soldiers?

I think nothing. I also think that the reason he didn't was because he wanted to avoid the the central question, women in combat. I also think this is a most important question and one that damn well should have been discussed.

The fact that Fleischer danced around it was part and parcel of the "not worth mentioning" allegation. We shouldn't bring it up when the reality is that the ladies are in combat now? Now is exactly the time to bring up the issue, when its application is clear and present. The attempt to wait until it fades away indicates to me that that policy will remain in this administration, with all of its talk of Chrisitan principles.

I'd have to say I agree with your implication in one respect: the administration does care. But what it cares about is not worth mentioning, and in that I agree with WND.

[Illbay]

Are you seriously implying that a statement condemning the rape of female soldiers is necessary? Or that not explicitly making such a statement implies that rape of female soldiers is acceptable?

[discostu]

You're reduced to nothing but insults. What's feminized about letting ANYONE that can pass the tests into combat? NOTHING. You're a silly little whiner who probably got shamed on the obstacle course by a woman and you've never recovered.

It's about what people can prove. Why shouldn't someone that has SHOWN that they have all of the physical and mental characteristics necessary be allowed to fight? Go explain to the Israelis that their combat women are destroying unit cohession, they'll laugh you right out of the country.

Stop using all of the tactics of the left and accusing other of being leftists. You're the one that has turnedd this into a personal asssault. You're the leftist. You're the PC using double standards. You're the person that has yet to present one single fact. You're the one dragging FR down with your lies and insults. You're the one costing lives by not allowing those who could do the job to do the job.

[discostu]

Oh please, you're going to blame the women for some pinhead in Washington lowering the standards?! How about blaming the idiot that lowered the damned standards. I havbe no problem with high standards and I'm completely uninterested in the gender ratio they result in. What makes me SICK is that people want to keep someone who's passed all the tests out just because they don't have a penis. That's STUPID in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY. If they can pass the tests they have ALREADY PROVEN they can fight.

Why should I ask my father about the PRT when my mother had to pass the exact same thing? How many verses of the hymn did you get out in the teargas room, my mom got out two, the PRT required one, she passed the test.

As I've said, repeatedly, only to be ignored, I don't want any kind of double standard. Same tests for everybody, and they better be damn tough tests, especially for the Marines.

WRONG AGAIN. I'm a man. But I'm familiar enough with the region that I know sexual assault isn't reserved for women. And I'm familiar enough with psychology to know that it's equally scarring to both genders.

Women don't play in the NFL because it too is living in the past. They're coming. It's not gonna be long. And you'll have to decide which century you live in.

As for the strongest women being no better than the weakest men, what a large stinking pile of moronic dog crap. Go say that in the nearest gym. On average women aren't as strong as men, any statement across the board is doomed to idiotic failure. You're wrong, and thank God the American people are learning you're wrong. This isn't about "placing" anybody. This is about allowing those who can achieve to achieve. No double stndards, no lowering of the standards, just aknowledging the simple truth.

[discostu]

And lets not forget Joan of Ark. A little nuts, but proved that at least some women can do the job. Harriet Tubman. The list keeps going on. And contrary to what some incredibly stupid backward think dips on the board would have you believe; they were all dykes, they weren't dragging their side down, they weren't future NOW members. They were women that weren't afraid to stand beside the men and face horror for what is right. The ability to fight and kill and die for what is right doesn't reside on the Y chromosome. Some people just need to get over themselves.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

These women are patriots and they know what can happen to them if they are captured. It is no different than a man being tourtured and killed. Should we keep men and women out of combat areas? I know there are issues re: women in the military. However, we have already gone through that debate as a country. They are there of their own free will because they want to protect their country. Stop trying to humiliate these female POWs. The sacrifice they make is no more or less than anyone else in the military who put their lives on the line.

[skeeter]

It's about what people can prove.

Wrong. Its about winning wars.

[discostu]

And is the best way to win a war to keep people who've proven they can fight from fighting just because we don't want their gender exposed to the horrors of war?

[skeeter]

And is the best way to win a war to keep people who've proven they can fight from fighting just because we don't want their gender exposed to the horrors of war?

Others have tried to point out to you that to put females in combat situations is to defy human nature, and on many levels. It defies common sense.

You believe otherwise. To argue would be a waste of time for both of us.

I sincerely hope this administration reverses the military's (Clinton's) gender policy immediately following this war's successful conclusion.

[Always A Marine]

What's feminized about letting ANYONE that can pass the tests into combat?

A combat unit which includes women lacks the focused ferocity which can only exist with equals who can be counted on to pull their own weight. What NFL team would be so foolish as to field a female lineman? A combat unit which includes women is a combat unit headed for a crushing defeat at the hands of a capable and determined enemy.

It's about what people can prove. Why shouldn't someone that has SHOWN that they have all of the physical and mental characteristics necessary be allowed to fight?

Gee, you make it sound like so much fun which women are not being "allowed" to have; sadly, it is no such thing. It is difficult to imagine what would possess a female to exchange what is best about being a woman for what is worst about being a man. But the answer to your question is that women have not "shown" their ability to succeed in ground combat just because a very few of them score well on tests. Placing women in combat units amounts to fielding a third string team, and will get a lot of good people killed.

Go explain to the Israelis that their combat women are destroying unit cohession, they'll laugh you right out of the country.

You are mistaken about the Israelis, perhaps confusing the IDF's training in defensive tactics -- which makes perfect sense in such a tiny nation in danger of being overrun by surrounding enemies. Years ago, the Israelis also thought that human nature had become outdated, and experimented with integrating women into combat units. The Russians also tried it. In both cases, the failure quickly became obvious and the experiments were ended.

[discostu]

No others have been insulting and rude. The only thing they pointed out was that they know a lot of insulting words. I am not impressed.

Yet another person claims tobe right but refuses to even attempt to prove his case. Let's try some simple questions here:
Why is it OK to put men in dangerous situations but not women?
How are women damaging unit cohesion?
Why should people that have proven they have the physical and mental skills to the same degree as men be allowed to apply those skills in the same way?

Those are the questions on the table. Those are the questions that nobody on this thread is willing to address with anything more intellectual than "you're dumb". War is a terrible thing and I don't want ANYONE subjected to it, but this world doesn't care what I want. So long as we're going to have to fight wars we should field the best personel we have, period, regardless of gender. Being a woman doesn't make someone not the best.