The Hill Blog» Blog Archive » Administration’s Actions in Darfur Sends the Wrong Message (Rep. Scott Garrett)

Administration’s Actions in Darfur Sends the Wrong Message (Rep. Scott Garrett)

April 24th, 2008

I am proud that the United States was one of the largest international humanitarian and peacekeeping supporters in Sudan and Darfur, but the recent actions by the Administration are completely unacceptable. The United States should not be meeting with Nafi Ali Nafi, the man responsible for many of Sudan’s domestic atrocities and a link to international terrorism. Meetings like this send the wrong message to the international community and terrorist organizations. I will continue to condemn these actions and speak out for the oppressed people of Sudan and Darfur while in Congress.

Permalink | Comment on this post (0)

By N.J. GOP Rep. Scott Garrett

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am and is filed under Politics, Foreign Policy .

This section is a Q&A slot featuring interviews with members of Congress and sometimes with senior aides, selected lobbyists and policy experts. The Hill will ask the questions, but we welcome your input; to help us shape the discussion please send your comment.
Latest Message

The Hill : CBS Foreign Correspondent Kimberly Dozier recently talked with The Hill’s Erica Wisniewski about the injuries she sustained covering the war in Iraq and how she has used her experience to educate Congress on recovering from war injuries.

The Hill : See a partial transcript of the interview below.

The Hill : Could you explain what happened the day of the explosion? What were you doing there?

Kimberly Dozier : We were visiting a spot where very uncharacteristically a roadside bomb had gone off hitting an Iraqi patrol the day before. Captain Funkhouser, our guide, wanted to talk to Iraqis on the street, asked them what they’d seen, look at them face to face, eye to eye. He said they won’t be able to lie to me face to face. They’ll tell me who planted that bomb.

Kimberly Dozier : With that we were on that street, outside of our Humvees, walking towards a group of Iraqis to talk to when the bombers remotely detonated an estimated 500 pound car bomb. It blew burning shrapnel through us, killed Captain Funkhouser and his translator, killed Paul and James, my crew, and left me fighting for my life.

Kimberly Dozier : I was reporting those figures every day, the numbers of American dead. But I glanced over the numbers of American injuries, had no idea how badly you could get torn up and still survive. And the amazing thing is that you can still survive, that they can put you back together.

The Hill : What did you testify to Congress about and what was that experience like?

Kimberly Dozier : I was allowed by CBS to testify once before the Senate before Sen. Inouye. I testified with a surgeon of mine from Shock Trauma Maryland, Dr. Andy Pollock, who is very active in the orthopedic community in terms of trying to bring more research money to blast injuries.

Kimberly Dozier : Now I couldn’t testify in favor of any specific program, but I was basically a living example. I would go before, either when I went before the Senate, or I’ve met with some Congressmen and Senators quietly, and told them my story, told them here’s what happened in the hospital, here are the decisions my family had to make about what steps to take with my legs, here of the possibilities of what we could do. Look, if I had been hit in 2003, they tell me I’d be dead.

Kimberly Dozier : With all of the medical advances since then, let’s see--2004, they would have immediately taken off both legs. 2005, definitely would have lost the right leg, they tell me, because it had turned black. But by 2006, they’d learned enough about limb salvage that they gave the leg another 36 hours, and it turned out to be bruising, not diseased, and the leg came back. Now I’m walking, I’m training for a 10k.

Kimberly Dozier : This is the kind of thing that people in Congress need to hear about so that these programs get as much attention as some of the other things the media has brought attention to, and therefore get the research funding that can make a difference.

Richard Whitt : Our primary issue is an open internet. You can look at that in a variety of ways. Network neutrality is one subset of that -- the idea that people can go on the Internet and use whatever applications and devices they want to without interference by the broadband provider.

Richard Whitt : Under the rubric of open internet, we really would like to see Congress use its oversight authority to insure the market is developing appropriately and take steps where they think the markets are constraining the ability of consumers to use applications and devices and to do what they want to do on the Internet.
Blog Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006

Senate
- Challengers
- Incumbents
House
- Incumbents
- Challengers
The Hill News
The Hill Comment
- Dick Morris
- John Fortier
- Ben Goddard
- David Hill
- David Keene
- Josh Marshall
- Mark Mellman
- Lynn Sweet
- Byron York
- Editorials
- Op-Eds
- Letters
- Weyants World
Classifieds
Features
- Capital Living
Resources
Blogroll
- Political Animal
- NRSC
- The Corner
- The Huffington Post
- The Note
- The Plank
- Daily Kos
- DSCC
- DCCC
- DNC
- Drudge Report
- RNC
- NRCC
- Capital Games

Administration’s Actions in Darfur Sends the Wrong Message (Rep. Scott Garrett)

Blog Archives

Senate

House

The Hill News

The Hill Comment

Classifieds

Features

Resources

Blogroll