Press "Enter" to skip to content

CA-46: My Response to Crazy Dana’s Response

Have you seen this? Dana Rohrabacher has just sent a reply a letter to the Huntington Beach Independent after they wrote a scathing editorial on his recent crazy behavior. Well, one would think that he actually thought about what they had to say to him. But alas, “Crazy Dana” would rather just dismiss this latest critique as “liberal left silliness”.

Here’s some of what he had to say.

Placing women’s underwear on the heads of alleged terrorists, among other interrogation techniques, is not torture, and permitting the liberal left in this country to claim that it is undermines our efforts in the war against terrorism.

During the hearings, the panties example was not the only tactic I pointed out where the FBI was pompously wrong. However, it was the most absurd and deserved to be mentioned to underscore the dramatic difference between real torture and mere humiliation.

My critics are the ones trying to ignore the gravity of the discussion taking place and continue to frame the issue as if the United States — not the captured terror suspects — were the criminal entity that desires to kill tens of thousands of innocent Americans.

Umm, no. With all due respect, Rohrabacher must not really know his Geneva Conventions. This kind of degrading treatment of prisoners is considered to be TORTURE. And last I checked, torture is illegal.

Shouldn’t Dana Rohrabacher know this? I mean, he’s a member of Congress who swore to protect and defend the Constitution? Now doesn’t he remember what the Constitution says about foreign treaties?

Oh yes, and shouldn’t Dana Rohrabacher know by now that torture doesn’t work? And really, why should we engage in torture if it doesn’t work? Shouldn’t we focus on enagaging in activities that actually keep our nation safe? Or does that make too much sense to “Crazy Dana”?

Well, I guess it must. After all, he still won’t admit that “manmade global warming” is real:

Your editorial also mentioned my outspoken opposition to the manmade global warming theory.

As a senior member of the Science Committee, I’ve studied vast amounts of peer-reviewed evidence directly challenging that theory. More than 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds, recently signed a petition rejecting the idea of manmade global warming. I would say that makes me far from the “final authority” on this issue.

OK, so Dana would rather listen to a renegade minority than to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of the climate crisis? Now how is that responsible behavior that a member of Congress should be displaying?

I guess Dana just doesn’t get it. The people of the 46th District are looking for real representation, not the same old extreme right rhetoric. And if Dana can’t seriously discuss the serious issues of the day like the Constitution and the climate crisis, then perhaps we should give him an “early retirement” this November.


  1. eph89 eph89 June 27, 2008

    Dana Rohrabacher gets away with things because no one challenges him. I hope that Debbie Cook will be the one to do so.

    As an example, take his “31,000 scientists… signed a petition”. On the surface, this seems to at least lend credibility to his argument, and that’s all he asks of most people. When unchallenged, it leads the reader/voter to think that people calling him crazy are wrong and not to be believed.

    What no one says is that he is quoting results of the Petition Project*, and that NSA has rejected the claims of its former head, Frederick Seitz, who participated closely in the “project”.

    When a congressman has to resort to misleading, deceptive “projects” to defend his positions, people should know this. And realize that climate change is just one example. Torture (and by extension the upholding of our constitution and honoring of our treaties) is another.

    Petition Project

  2. Andrew Davey Andrew Davey Post author | June 27, 2008


    I do as well. Crazy Dana’s gotten away with far too much bizarre behavior. He really needs his “early retirement” ASAP, and I truly believe Debbie Cook can “provide” that for him. 😉

    And btw, don’t forget to donate!

    We still have a few more days in Q2 to raise $$$$ for Debbie to make sure she’ll have what it takes to give Dana that early retirement. 🙂

  3. Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski June 27, 2008

    Placing panties of the heads of detained enemy combatants would certainly fall under a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that bans “humiliating and degrading treatment.” Dana’s position marks a shift away from basic international human rights standards. This sort of thinking goes back to the president’s decision, in 2002, to suspend portions of the Geneva Convention for captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

    The Geneva Convention are no in place so much to protect our enemies, but to protect our soliders should they be captured.

    The Congressman continues to demonstrate why he is no longer fit for office.

  4. Vern Nelson Vern Nelson July 2, 2008

    Sorry I didn’t see this when you guys wrote it, I was busy with my own response, but – why do you fall into Dana’s trap of talking about “panties on the head?” We waterboard, we use electric shocks, we beat the hell out of people, we leave them in “stress positions” for hours or days which sometimes pull arms and legs out of their sockets… and we also put panties on their heads sometimes. So Dana gets us focusing on one thing that sounds kind of silly, and probably wouldn’t be called torture all by itself. It’s an infantile argument tactic on his part.

  5. Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski July 2, 2008

    I thought we were talking about violations of Geneva conventions here Vern and how humiliation of prisoners is banned under those rules.

  6. Vern Nelson Vern Nelson July 2, 2008

    That’s true but it all started with the FBI complaining about a lot of rough treatment and torture that they considered wrong, unproductive and illegal, and Dana chewed them out by taking the tack that the worst thing happening was panties on the head so everyone would laugh and not worry about these detainees (many of whom are completely innocent)

    And the more we talk about pantie on the head, the more most people laugh and say “that’s not so bad,” which was exactly Dana’s plan.

    I’m sure panties on the head is uncool and a violation of Geneva, but mainly it’s a distraction from our real unconscionable abuse. Anyway that’s my take, which I pursued on my own blog, and hopefully the Independent will print my letter tomorrow to the same effect.

    By the way, try googling images of panties on head. I was hoping to find a pre-made photoshop of Dana. But what’s there is pretty horrifying, actual detainees chained in grotesque stress positions … yes, with panties on their heads.

Comments are closed.