More details on the Nick Berg murder…

A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq and said the execution was carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

In a grisly gesture, the executioners held up the man’s head for the camera.

The American identified himself on the video as Nick Berg, a 26-year-old Philadelphia native. His body was found near a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday, the same day he was beheaded, a U.S. official said.

The video bore the title “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American.” It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi ? an associate of Osama bin Laden believed behind the wave of suicide bombings in Iraq ? was shown in the video or simply ordered the execution. Al-Zarqawi also is sought in the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan in 2002.
. . .
U.S. officials had feared the shocking photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad would endanger the lives of American troops and civilians.

Zarqawi?? Hmmm….that sounds sooooo familiar (via DKos) :

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

?People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president?s policy of preemption against terrorists,? according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Nick Berg died because the Bush Administration didn’t care about fighting terrorists.

Spare me the crap about Clinton letting Bin Laden slip though his fingers. 9/11 supposedly “changed everything”, yet George Bush avoided taking action against a known terrorist three fucking times because he was more obsessed with Saddam Hussein than al Qaeda. George Bush shouldn’t be impeached, he should be tried for treason.

I’ve been moving computer equipment all morning and haven’t really had access to the internet. Once I finally got reconnected, I pulled up CNN to test my network connectivity and this was the first thing I saw :

American beheaded in Iraq, captors threaten more

Have you ever had one of those dreams where you’re falling to your death and, knowing it’s a dream, you keep telling yourself to wake up? That’s how the news has been affecting me lately. The worse the news gets, the more powerless I feel. We’re in a tailspin right now and the more our leaders try to correct it, the faster we spiral downward.

Forgive me for being hyper-partisan here, but how has anything that our country has undertaken since 9/11 helped ease international tensions? We’ve gone from a global outpouring of support so large that Yasser Arafat was donating blood, to the point in which we can’t even get Canada on our side. Everyone, from the Islamic militants who want to kill us to the Fundamentalist imperialists who want to kill every Arab in sight, is jumpy right now and the more itchy trigger-fingers there are in this gunfight, the more likely we’ll all end up dead.

Good news, everybody! Oklahoma’s esteemed Senator Jim “Flat Earth” Inhofe just informed the nation, during the senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the Iraq prisoners’ mistreatment, that the entire fiasco was the work of exactly seven bad apples. Seven misguided servicemen and women, and not the lax command and supervision structure above them, or the vague instructions they got to “soften up” prisoners who might have valuable information.

Don’t worry, folks: Nothing out of the ordinary here. Just a momentary lapse. Just a few tired GI Joes and Janes who missed the “-n’t” on the sign that said “Please don’t strip the prisoners naked and pile them up in a big pile and take several rolls of photographs of yourself doing so.”

It’s reassurances like this I miss from Inhofe. I haven’t felt this relieved since hours after the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed, and Inhofe showed up on TV assuring us that Arabs were responsible for the whole thing. Way to vote for quality, my fellow Oklahomans. Good work on that.

My friend Brian just sent me a couple funny links that are good ways to kill a few minutes, the Church Sign Generator and George Says…. Here’s a few I’ve thrown together :

I stole that last one from SNL. The Church Sign Generator site has a gallery of actual church signs as well. My favorite there is “Stop, drop, and roll doesn’t work in Hell.”, but it still doesn’t beat the best one I’ve ever seen which just said “I Married A Prostitute”.

Now I don’t mean to sound like I think everything is Bush’s fault, but why is he getting a free pass here? It seems that responsibility for this whole torture scandal rests on the Pentagon, CIA, and civilian contractors. Like with 9/11, this is turning into a situation in which inter-agency finger-pointing is starting to heat up. I wouldn’t be surprised if this gets confusing enough that nobody knows who should take the blame.

That’s why we have a President. He’s the one who connects all these agencies and he’s the one who should be getting intimately involved in situations like this. But from all I’ve seen, Bush can’t be bothered to even read magazine articles about this situation, much less the executive summaries of the investigations into this matter.

Like Kevin Drum said, Bush is a bad CEO President. Sure, there’s a time and a place for leaders who take a “hands off approach”, but if ever there was a time for a micromanager, this is it. Goddammit, George. Pay attention.

The fix is in…

Here’s my favorite part of the article :

The senate Finance Committee chairman publicly disclosed most of them and folded them into the corporate tax bill, which Republicans are calling the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) bill. Then Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked colleagues to support it.

“Keep in mind,” Grassley said, “that the JOBS bill could be the last train out of town this year.”

It’s hard to believe that there are people still dumb enough to think that giving away billions of dollars to corporations without any strings attached will actually create jobs. Haven’t the last few rounds of tax cuts (as well as the massive “investment” in overseas labor) taught Americans anything?

Since the Republicans seem so fond of meaningless acronyms, gimme some suggestions for what you’d name this bill. I’m thinking something immature along the lines of the Saving Humans In Trouble bill.

Here’s the top headlines right now at Yahoo! :

War, torture, human rights…and men wearing skirts. It’s nice to know that even in these troubling times we still have a little room for “junk food news”.

And not to get off on a rant here (cue: Dennis Miller smirk), stories like this drive me crazy. Not that I think every headline should be about politics but just ust glancing at the entertainment section, there a a number of stories I’d consider more worthy of front page placement than an advertisement for the movie Troy : Comedian Alan King died, the Tony award nominations were announced, the end of Survivor All-Stars, etc….

As someone who’s read his fair share of Entertainment Weekly, I don’t mean to trash every “entertainment reporter” or anything. As stupid as it sounds, I know something as inconsequential as the Bennifer breakup is newsworthy, but this whole Brad Pitt story is clearly just an out-of-context quote turned into what’s essentially a press release for his upcoming movie. Based on the headline, you’d think Pitt was some sorta transvestite in the vein of Eddie Izzard who’s trying to start a fashion trend, when he really just made a crack about the costumes.

This bit from last week’s senate hearing shows what I think is the most important reason for holding the Bush Administration’s feet to the fire in this torture situation :

BAYH: Your resignation has been called for; that’s a pretty serious thing for any of us. And you answered that if you ever concluded that you could not be effective in discharging your duties, you would step down. But that you would not do so as part of a political witch-hunt, so to speak.

There’s another aspect of this, though, I’d like to ask your opinion about, and that is whether, in your opinion — and I know it is ultimately a decision for the president to make. But in your opinion, even though you weren’t personally involved in the underlying acts here, would it serve to demonstrate how seriously we take this situation, and therefore help to undo some of the damage to our reputation, if you were to step down?

RUMSFELD: That’s possible.

If Bush has been stoking the fires of anti-Americanism in the last three years with his arrogant attitude towards the rest of the world, then this is the equivalent of dousing that fire with gasoline. Our international reputation has been trashed beyond belief and I think the only thing that would help us is a complete 180 degree turn in foreign policy.

But back to the earlier point, if the best reason for making heads roll over this is to demonstrate our commitment to human rights to the Arab world, would they really give a shit about firing Rumsfeld? To put it another way, would the American chickenhawks have been pacified if Saddam Hussein had fired “Chemical Ali” in the run-up to the Iraq war? My guess is probably “no”. I really doubt that our enemies would be inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and let him get away with invoking the “Corky Defense”.

Okay, I’ just paying half-attention to the Rumsfeld hearings, so correct me if I’m wrong here. One of the female members of the panel just read a statement along the lines of the White House’s “things are bad, but at least they have freedom” talking points. The remarkable thing was she threw in “…and yes, the freedom to see those shocking pictures”. Has it really come to this?? Are they really patting themselves on the back for transforming Iraq from a place where sexual abuse is widespread to a place where sexual abuse is widespread and public?

Man, based on everything I’ve seen and read over the last 48 hours, you’d think Rumsfeld was one mumbly non-answer away from being fired. After reading this Josh Marshall post, I sorta doubt it :

Let’s say Rumsfeld resigns on Friday. The election is still six months away. And the nation is at war. So a new Defense Secretary would be needed more or less immediately. That would open up a very uncomfortable prospect for the administration.

Confirmation hearings for a new Sec Def would, I think, inevitably turn into a national forum for discussing the management of the Pentagon, the planning for the war and the lack of planning for the occupation. The new nominee would be drawn into all sorts of uncomfortble public second-guessing of what’s happened up until this point. Sure, that’s stuff under Rumsfeld. But, really, it’s stuff under Bush — the civilian head of the United States military.

That, I have to imagine, is something the White House would like to avoid at any cost.

It’s kinda hard to campaign on “don’t change horses mid-stream” when you..well…change horses mid-stream. Unless people start calling for Bush’s head as well, I don’t think Rumsfeld is going anywhere.

Via Kevin Drum, I see that the White House is going to try to trap Kerry into another “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” moment :

Driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, the White House reversed course today and asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October.

“While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies,” President Bush said in a statement on the request this afternoon. “We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops.”

He said he was asking Congress to “establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops and to make sure we succeed in these critical fronts in the war on terror.” He said his administration later would seek a full supplemental request for fiscal 2005 “when we can better estimate precise costs.”
. . .
Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate over the war’s conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has already approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion, of which $149 billion went to Iraq.

This is clearly being used as a ploy to try to trap Kerry into talking out of both sides of his mouth. At the same time Bush is lowballing the figure that’s really needed :

Some on Capitol Hill believe billions more are needed over the next five months.

“The administration would be well served here to come forward now, be honest about this,” Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel told NBC’s “Today” show.

“And that means be honest with the Congress, be honest with the American people. Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it’s going to be $50 billion to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year,” Hagel said.

Rather than get trapped into “voting against funding our troops”, here’s what Kerry needs to do :

Publicly call Bush on the fact that he’s asking for less than what’s needed for political purposes and then offer a counter plan that asks for more.

Outline the differences between how he and Bush would spend the money (less money for “”bunker busters” and more to train civilian contractors that rape and murder are wrong), especially how he would spend the extra money that he’s requesting.

Stress that funding a war requires additional sacrifice and that the extra money he’s asking for should be paid for by whatever populist tax reform he cares to champion (roll back tax cuts for rich, close tax loopholes, etc.)

Offer tentative details of a long-term Iraq exit plan with his request and challenge Bush to do the same.

The biggest difference that should be pointed out between the two proposals is that Bush’s is the “do what’s popular” solution and Kerry’s is the “do what it takes” solution. With a big wedge like that, Kerry could undo a lot of PR damage that has been wrought by Bush and his fellow utopian anarchists. This could potentially be a disaster for Bush, as long as Kerry plays his cards right.

To be honest, there’s so much crap that comes out about the Iraq war and the Bush administration, I didn’t think this story would have legs. This morning, CNN was covering the torture story with such vigor, you’d think Michael Jackson was involved. They kept cutting back and forth between various expert, reporters in Iraq, footage of Bush’s interview, and reporters at the White House and senate. In less than ten minutes I the anchor asked both “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “Will the President be asking for Rumsfeld’s resignation?” In the little that I saw, it seemed like they were already setting up Rumsfeld as the fall guy.

And speaking of smelling blood, Tom Tomorrow’s response to the pupdates about soldiers murdering Iraqi prisoners is exactly what I would have written :

What the hell is going on over there?

This isn’t a few bad apples. This is systemic rot.

Stick a fork in us, we’re done. We have officially lost the battle for hearts and minds. We have officially failed as representatives of enlightened democracy.
. . .
You know what this says to the Iraqis? Your lives are worthless. Our people can murder you at will, and receive barely a reprimand.

I wonder is al Qaeda is having problems recruiting people these days?

Forgive me for posting what should go in the comments section as a post. My reply to this (as well as some points I’ve seen raised elsewhere) got a little long :

While I’ve certainly had issues with a lot of Rall’s cartoons and esp. with his essays, and while I haven’t seen any evidence that Tillman “wanted to kill Arabs”, I HAVE seen plenty of evidence that Tillman joined the Rangers because of 9/11, and I find it hard to argue with the remainder of Rall’s analysis

Let’s think back to when Tillman enlisted. Shortly after 9/11, Bush’s approval ratings were 90%. While I was in the remaining 10% who was scared that we were on a runaway train with a retard at the switch, I can understand why people gravitated toward their leader in a time of crisis. This was the environment in which Tillman and his non-famous peers enlisted.

And why did they enlist? To fight al Qaeda and the Taliban. Regardless of how awful the this was carried out or the ulterior motives of those in charge, going after the people who were responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is a noble goal. While I would have preferred a less “there will be some collateral damage” approach, the ostensible goal was just.

Should Tillman have known better? Well, maybe. I don’t know if I really feel comfortable blaming somebody for not being fully informed. Especially when the media pretty much inoring anything even slightly critical of the President. After all, we can’t expect everyone to have read The Nation and Salon.

If Tillman later realized how shitty the planning and execution of Bush’s wars was, should he have refused to participate? As nice as it would be to say “yes”, there’s no room in the military for low-level guys to be questioning their orders in the middle of a fight. Ever.

So, was Tillman a rube? Possibly, but that doesn’t change the fact that he (along with every other dead and injured soldier) deserves to be treated like a hero for the willingness to risk his life to defend our country. I call it “hate the war, love the warrior”.

But that’s not the point of Rall’s cartoon. In Rall’s world, it’s okay to denigrate the sacrifice of someone who’s not as hip to Bush’s motives as he is. I wonder if Rall watched Nightline’s “The Fallen” with the same wiseass attitude that he displayed in his cartoon. By Rall’s reasoning, it seems that all our dead soldiers are “idiots” who don’t deserve the respect they earned.

I know this was covered in a previous post, but there’s a good conversation going on in the comments of this post by Max Sawicky about how much Ted Rall sucks. Here’s the cartoon that spurred the latest Rall controversy :

So in a sense, this is a different issue than the one I wrote about before. Not only is Rall a crybaby who’s jealous of the success of others, but he’s also an insensitive asshole whose biggest contribution to public discourse is slaughtering the occasional sacred cow with the ostensible purpose of helping “stimulate discussion”.

I hate to get all “Freaks and Geeks” on everyone, but jocks totally suck :

The coaches of a middle school basketball team who humiliated one of their players by giving him a “crybaby award” will likely face disciplinary action from district officials.

The 13-year-old boy’s coach called him just before last month’s team banquet and told him to make sure he attended because he was getting a special trophy, the boy’s father said.

At the event, the boy watched as all of his Pleasantville Middle School teammates received trophies or certificates.

He was then called up to receive his award, and a coach told the crowd that the boy was being honored because “he begged to get in the game, and all he did was whine.”

The trophy had a silver figure of a baby atop a pedestal engraved with the boy’s name, which was spelled incorrectly. Family members said the teen ? an honor roll student ? was so embarrassed that he stayed home from school on the following Monday.

I’ve always hated the whole “macho” culture that props up bullshit like this. I am so goddamned sick of the old-fashioned idea that males have to fit into a narrow definition of what’s “manly” or that those who society deems “wimpy” or “gay” are somehow unworthy of
their own gender.

As far as I’m concerned, those coaches should never be granted a supervisory role around children again. They may think that their position gives them the right to “toughen up” any kids that don’t meet up to their standards, but the emotional scars this sort of thing causes can last a lifetime. And while this is getting some much-deserved public derision, for every incident like this there are hundreds of similar situations that are incited by schoolmates and ignored by administrators as another example of “boys will be boys”. Somebody needs to tell these people their job is to teach and protect children, not reinforce gender stereotypes.

And by the way, lemme be the first to point out the supreme irony that this all happened in Pleasantville. It seems that some in the real town are as as intolerant of diversity as their fictional counterparts. Go figure.