We got mail

Last May, a "letter from dad" about the war started going around the internet. It was billed as "non political," although in this particular case non political meant "only a loser wouldn't vote for George Bush." A regular correspondent of Sadly, No! and former blogger sent us his thoughts and we copy selected portions of the letter, and his comments, below. (Comments are in italics.)

THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS
This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. [...]

First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. [...]

. Yeah, it sure was fucked up that Iraq did all those things. Oh… wait…

. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

Odd, considering that, at the end of this letter he suggests there are not "peaceful Muslims."

The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

When did "terrorist attack" become a verb?

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

Funny, but it seems to me that Spain was about to undergo a "regime change" due to Iraq well before the attack. Spaniards didn't want their people in Iraq.

Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Weird. We've gone from talking about Muslim terrorists to just saying that Muslims themselves are the problem.

We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Put me on the side of Ben Franklin on this one, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." In the grand scheme of history, the "War on Terror" is but a battle in the greater war for what is right. If America becomes a different place - a more martial, less free place - because of the terrorists, then what would we win by winning?

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. [Who would that be?] I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Nice. So I want the United States to lose a war because I opposed it, but it's not because I'm disloyal, only stupid. It couldn't possibly be because I didn't want a bunch of Americans to die needlessly or to be seen as attacking a Muslim country which hadn't attacked us, making us look even worse in the eyes of other Muslim countries.

We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

This is bullshit. "Most of the prisoners, however-by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers-were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints."

And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Notice that the key here is his repeated use of the word "type." It's not those guys, but guys like them. Not so, says reality. Iraqi men women and children - civilians mostly - were responsible for dragging those corpses through the streets. The people who beheaded the American didn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein. They were most likely trained in the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq, not Saddam's area.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Right. Shocking them, letting dogs bite them, raping them and, you know, maybe killing a few now and then, but it's worth it since we got rid of Saddam's torture chambers, right? Now we have "freedom chambers."

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

Here's why that's bullshit.

Nashwan Ali - who said his nickname was Big Man - said: 'A US MP asked me this morning what police division I was in. I said I was in criminal intelligence.
'The American asked me why we had beaten the prisoners. I said we beat the prisoners because they are all bad people. But I told him we didn't strip them naked, photograph them or fuck them like you did.'"

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

OK, but it seems to me that when President Clinton attacked Iraq during Desert Fox, Republicans had no problem with the fact that the country was at a political standstill over impeachment. This is especially damning in light of David Kay's feeling that "Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

Nice point, although Egypt's not as bad as most. And we welcome Indonesia to the free world, thanks to President Clinton. And when are we going to kick out Musharraf and give Pakistan back its elected government? Wait. We can't do that. He's willing. I can name a country which seems to be losing its freedom of speech. Here's part of how President Bush celebrated freedom a couple of days ago: "Two Bush opponents, taken out of the crowd in restraints by police, said they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing shirts that said they opposed the president." Friggin' evildoers. How about freedom of the press? Equal rights for everyone?

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less.

So when are we going to invade France in order to kill off all their Muslims?

Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

Yeah, like that politically correct George W. Bush. Don't you think that part of the reason that Muslim countries are more violent is because they're so fucking poor? Rwanda, remember, is only about 5% Muslim and 92% Christian. When are we going to stop hearing about those "peaceful Christians"? And let's not forget that Bosnia was only a third Muslim and that the Christians there were responsible for both starting the war and performing the most heinous acts. See again "A Simple Plan…"

[And we saved the best for last! --S,N!]

[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for him.

No shit?

That's our Wolfie!

9/11 Commission Report, page 259:

Tenet told us that in his world "the system was blinking red." By late July (2001,) Tenet said, it could not "get any worse." Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB contained an article titled "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real." Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department's questions on this point; the reporting was convincing. [Emphasis added]

Never mind me, what about you?

From a job offer posted on the web site of Baumann Unternehmensberatung:

Do you speak English excellent [?]

We might even go so far as to say... very excellent.

Isn't that way more than what it would cost on eBay?

Alan emails us about reports that Spain's former Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, used government funds to lobby for a nice and shiny US Congressional Gold Medal for himself:

The Spanish Ser radio station revealed yesterday that while in power the former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar engaged an American firm of lawyers who act as lobbyists to promote his image and collect signatures to enable him to get the Congressional Gold Medal. The contract was signed in secret and was paid for with Foreign Ministry funds. The news has sparked off widespread criticism.

In accordance with the terms of the contract signed with the Piper Rudnick firm of lawyers, the Spanish Ambassador to the United States Javier Ruperez paid 700,000 dollars at the beginning of the year and had undertaken to pay other sums during the following months until the figure of two million dollars had been reached. [...]

The firm of lobbyists undertook "to assist the Spanish Government in its public diplomacy and communications strategy." The contract refers to "the consolidation of relations with the White House" at a time when Aznar was continually saying that he had “a privileged relationship” with George Bush.

In January the firm undertook to advertise the speech Aznar gave on Capitol Hill in February and to ask members of Congress to attend and to give their signatures in support of the Spanish president. Aznar has secured 306 signatures so far and has exceeded the minimum (290), but the Senate has not yet begun to process the proposal for awarding him the medal.

Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that:

Former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar yesterday denied allegations that he was illegally holding on to secret intelligence reports and that his government paid a Washington lobbyist firm to help him secure a Congressional Gold Medal. [...]

Mr Aznar, who is in Latin America promoting an autobiography, has so far failed to reply to a request from Spain's Centre for National Intelligence (CNI) that he return any documents he may still have that refer to the March 11 bombings.

Mr Aznar suggested to a radio interviewer in Colombia earlier this week that he was still in possession of the CNI reports handed to him after the attacks that were followed three days later by his party being voted out of office.

"I have them because I was the prime minister," he told the radio station.

So how do you say Go fuck yourself in Spanish?

Hey poopyheads, why can't you debate the issues?!?

Mona Charen is upset that those mean liberals are attacking her friend:

A recent inductee into the falsely accused Hall of Fame is my friend Daniel Troy, currently serving as general counsel at the Food and Drug Administration.

Troy has been attacked in U.S. News and World Report, the Denver Post and the Boston Globe. He is being described as "too close to those he regulates" because he played a minor role in a case involving Pfizer Pharmaceuticals when he was in private practice.

Minor player, major income:

...according to Troy's financial disclosure form, Pfizer had paid Troy's firm nearly $360,000 for services "provided directly by" Troy in less than six months.

And just what did US News & World Report?:

For a decade, a Washington lawyer named Daniel Troy tried to restrict the regulatory powers of the Food and Drug Administration. He won his share of legal battles, taking the side of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries against the federal agency. But Troy is no longer on the outside throwing stones. [...]

Since taking over as the FDA's chief counsel in August 2001, Troy, 43, has held dozens of private meetings with drug manufacturers and others regulated by the FDA. He kept no notes or minutes of those meetings. A U.S. News inquiry shows he has also favored less rigorous enforcement of regulations for some products and has been lenient about scrutinizing advertising claims by companies. [...]

Troy's doorway has been crowded by an industry legendary for its lobbying clout. A report from the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen shows drug companies employed 625 lobbyists in 2000--more than one for every member of Congress. Between September 2001 and November 2002, Troy operated as the de facto head of the FDA, sources in the drug industry say; it was not until November 14 that Mark McClellan, a medical doctor and health care economist, was sworn in as FDA commissioner. During that period, documents show, Troy held at least 50 meetings with representatives from the industries FDA regulates. U.S. News sought records of those meetings with industry under the Freedom of Information Act but was informed by Troy's office that there are "no minutes, no memos, no nothing." Troy declined to say why he did not keep notes of those meetings. [...]

The FDA's central focus, however, remains the regulation of pharmaceuticals. During Troy's tenure, the FDA has seen a falloff in enforcement actions against drug companies for questionable advertising claims. [...]

He represented the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. in its effort to fend off the FDA in the 1990s.

Sounds like Troy is just the guy one would want at the FDA. And where was he before? The American Enterprise Institute. It's beautiful.

The Lance Armstrong of Professional Virgins

As Pete M. noted in his Send Hans Zeiger to the GOP Convention post, the management of Sadly, No! has a thing for one of Hans' competitors, one Sheri Valera:

Our somewhat sudden declaration of love notwithstanding, Sadly, No! isn't the kind of blog that falls in love just because of a woman's looks. (Amber Pawlik being all the proof one ever needs -- how could one resist an intellect like that?) Speaking of Amber, as regular readers surely know, she belongs to the Salvation Army Corps of Professional Virgins, a distinguished group of individuals whose members include Ben Shapiro. Yet even our very own and pure Amber believes that some hanky panky is acceptable before one's wedding night however:

I spent the weekend with my boyfriend, in Indiana for a wedding. There is a big smile on my face right now. I love him. A lot. I didn't want to give him mono so we didn't kiss on the lips.

What does this have to do with Miss Valera you wonder? Well, she makes Amber Pawlik look like a total slut, that's what. Impossible? Well then, you've obviously never heard of Google, which brings us this:

There's a Gainesville legend that says if a University of Florida student graduates and is still a virgin, a brick will fall from Century Tower. But what will happen if one graduates before sharing his or her first kiss? Will the Tower just crumble to pieces? Well, we'll see when political science junior Sheri Valera finishes school.

While it might seem unbelievable that this head-turning, green-eyed brunette has never kissed a boy, it's true. Valera has decided to wait until marriage to lock lips. Through her no-kissing stance, she's determined to set an example for girls to have higher standards and to wait until they meet "the one."

Oh, talk dirty to us Sheri!

O&B;: What's up with the no kissing policy?
Sheri: To guard my heart. It protects me emotionally and spiritually.

Awww!

O&B;: If a guy were to kiss you, how would you feel?
Sheri: I'd slap him because that shows he is thinking only of himself.

ok, but how would you feel Sheri? A little bit too turned on maybe? Especially if the kissing was being done by Pete M. from The Dark Window?

O&B;: Don't you get the urge?
Sheri: Sure, but when I spend time with a guy, I surround myself with friends to not put myself in the situation.

Well I, uh, I'm not sure how you pronounce it or anything, but I, uh, I believe it's Ménage à Trois?

O&B;: Does this mean you have kissed dating goodbye as well?
Sheri: No, but the guy has to initiate it.

Followed by... The Slap!

O&B;: Do kissing scenes in movies make you squirm?
Sheri: Some movies I'm like 'Awww.' But most movies, the girl is too good for the guy. I'm like 'NOOOO! Get your hands off! R-E-S-P-E-C-T!' and want to sing Aretha Franklin.

You mean this song?

Ooo, your kisses (oo)
Sweeter than honey (oo)

Any last words Sheri?

O&B;: Are you nervous about your first kiss being in front of everyone at your wedding?
Sheri: Yeah. But at the same time it will be a great encouragement to a lot of younger girls who are single.

We can't add anything to that.

Stupid Sadly, Be More Flashy!

Yes, today is Friday. No, once again there will not be a Flash Friday animation. That sucks you think? Sure it does -- but what are you going to do about it? To keep you busy on this no Flash Friday however, the management is happy to offer the following links:

Pete M. from The Dark Window asks for your help in a very important project: sending Hans Zeiger to the GOP convention. So go over there now and follow the instructions!

G.A. Cerny has several interesting posts on the Berger affair (1, 2, and 3:)

This is where it gets really strange. As I wrote yesterday, and as anyone at all familiar with the Archives' procedures knows, you're not allowed to bring in anything to carry documents, or any unchecked papers that might get confused with Archive documents. It absolutely amazes me that this basic restriction, which I have never seen broken in the public reading rooms, would be so casually violated in a secure room. I have no explanation; the only thing I can think of is that people with high security clearances do not face that restriction, though that makes no sense as policy.

And the All Spin Zone reminds you to be wary of people wearing X-Ray glasses.

Well what do you know?

Earlier this week, we had a chance to watch one of our favorite movies, the Marx Brothers's classic Duck Soup. You can imagine our surprise when we noticed that a young Saddam Hussein played a small part in that movie:

Needless to say, the French Canadians are the worst

A few days ago, the incomparable World O'Crap told us about the recent FoxNews Fair & Balanced report on Canadian treachery:

From Bill O'Reilly's latest column:

A recent poll taken in Canada says that 40% of Canadian teenagers believe the United States is an "evil" country. Among French-Canadian teens, the number rises to 64%. This, of course, is hard to believe, and must be laid right on the doorstep of the often viciously anti-American Canadian press as well as irresponsible educators supposedly teaching Canadian kids about the world.

Or, we can lay it to blame where it belongs: on vicious French-Canadians mocking our imminent doom while hiding out in Germany.

Which makes this column written by a fellow that conducted the poll in question very entertaining reading:

My descent into Fox News's bizarre take on all things Canadian started with a mention on Matt Drudge's website. The editors of the Drudge Report had posted the findings of a survey my organization had released in the final week of the federal election. When we asked 500 Canadian teens a series of questions in a telephone poll about our country's role on the world stage, 40 per cent indicated that they agreed with the statement, "America is force for evil in the world." [...]

The first sign that the Drudge Report mention was whipping up a tempest in a teapot came in the form of a screed by arch Canada-baiter and top-rated Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly. I suspect his producers have Google news alerts set up with the key words "Canada," "socialism," "draft dodgers" and "anti-Americanism." On his show, Mr. O'Reilly used the single survey statistic to let loose on Canada's political leaders, the media and our "ignorant teens." One of his choicer utterances included: "The truth is that the USA has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada. . . . I object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chrétien in Canada."

Sorry, but didn't our Governor-General and President George W. Bush just commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-Day together in France? Last time I looked, we fought alongside the Americans in Korea, during the long grind of the Cold War and served with distinction in Bosnia and Afghanistan. And by the way, we have had a new Prime Minister for seven months and his name is Paul Martin. [...]

In the ensuing 24 hours, my e-mail inbox was clogged with a strange mélange of messages from Canada-hating O'Reilly fans and updates from friends on both sides of the border as to where our now "viral" poll was popping up in the U.S. media.

CNN's Tucker Carlson of Crossfire fame offered what was a familiar anti-Canadian refrain in the continuing coverage of the poll result: "It's time for America to get some self-respect. . . . Until Canadian attitudes change, there should be a moratorium on Canadian immigration to the United States. No one who says 'aboot' could come here."

It is easy to write off Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson as blowhards or worse. [Yes, it sure is! --S,N!]

Is Steve talking about what we think he's talking about?

Hey boys and girls, remember this?

Iyad Allawi is alleged to have shot the prisoners at a Baghdad police station days before power was handed to the interim Iraqi Government last month.

Last night his office denied the accusation, saying it was typical of black propaganda spread by Iraq's enemies.

and that:

Is there any truth to these tales that Allawi has shot suspects? The stories have been denied by Allawi and dismissed by members of his interim government, the U.S. Embassy and a State Department spokesman. The Iraqi press has refrained from making any mention of the story. On the other hand, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook urged the Red Cross to investigate the allegations. [Emphasis added]

Yet in a Donald Rumsfeld interview with Steve Gill of WWTN, this exchange took place:

STEVE GILL: Change, obviously, is always difficult whether it's in the military or in a country. Getting back to Iraq, we've seen some changes not just in the government structure where Paul Bremer and his team have been replaced now by Prime Minister Allawi and his team. They can do some things it seems to me, Mr. Secretary, that we weren't able to do. Obviously, they've been able to execute a couple of the insurgents -- I think six or seven of them. We couldn't do the same thing. And that tougher approach may bear dividends for them when we really couldn't do it.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, there's a lot of things that an Iraqi government can do that we can't do. They have, clearly -- foreign troops in your country are always inevitably going to be considered an occupation force and people worry about an occupation force. The Iraqi government is not an occupation force and it can do things and not have its motives questioned and it can be less likely to be criticized, even if they did exactly the same thing. But they are capable of doing things that really will reflect an Iraqi template, Iraqi solution to the problems in Iraq and that's what they should do -- it's their country. [Emphasis added]

So what, exactly, was Steve talking about? And who was "they?" If the stories aren't true, why didn't Rumsfeld say something?!?

(TTBFTL.)

When I say would, I mean probably not

The Christian Broadcasting Network has some scary news:

Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think

The article consists of an interview with Jed Babbin, who is introduced thusly:

LEE WEBB: Our guest today said that the United Nations openly cooperates with terrorists. It has become a tool for rogue nations. He claims if presidential candidate John Kerry has his way, U.S. Foreign policy will be dictated by Third World bureaucrats in the UN.

Which likely explains why later on the show this exchange takes place:

WEBB: Would John Kerry really give other countries in the UN control of U.S. foreign policy?

BABBIN: Well, I don't know if Mr. Kerry would, or actually could, given the Congress he's likely to inherit, if, in fact, he's elected.

Wow, thanks for coming on the show.

Today on OpinionJournal...

it's... Fusilli Jimmy!

(Please also see this.)

Freedom means never being short of firepower

AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration cleared the way Wednesday to sell arms to Iraq just as it does to other allies, reversing the ban in place for much of Saddam Hussein's regime. [Gee, when was that ban not in place? Oh yeah... -S,N!]

Bush made a presidential determination that the standard methods of engaging in munitions transfers with friendly nations are now appropriate in the case of Iraq and will promote democratic reforms, help achieve reconstruction and strengthen the Iraqi government.

Transferring munitions to Iraq = Promoting democratic reforms.
Transferring munitions to Iraq = Helping reconstruction.

Please explain the logic underlying the two propositions listed above in the comments. Danke.

Thanks to Blair for the link. (From now on known as TTBFTL.)

Oh, you mean that Jonathan K. Idema!

July 19, 2004:

US and Afghan authorities deny any links to the self-styled task force, describing them as vigilantes on a personal quest to fight terrorism.

July 22, 2004:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Thursday it held an Afghan man for a month after taking custody of him from a trio of American counterterror vigilantes who have since been arrested on charges of torturing prisoners at a private jail they ran in the Afghan capital.

What a predicament!

Thanks to Blair for the link.

Added: No More Mister Nice Blog has more.

Journalism à la Rant

The Rant, home to Justin "The Hottest New Conservative Writer On The Web" Darr, offers this headline,:

which links to an article that begins thusly:

Official denies nuclear arms found in Iraq

Baghdad, Iraq, Jul. 21 (UPI) -- A U.S. military official Wednesday denied a report of Iraqi missiles carrying nuclear warheads being found in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad.

The daily al-Sabah newspaper Wednesday had quoted sources as saying three missiles armed with nuclear warheads were discovered in a trench near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A U.S. military spokesman in Tikrit told United Press International that the report was untrue.

So did the Moonie Times change the headline, or are the good people at The Rant just really, really hoping that this is true?

Site R

Back in the days when we didn't squander so much of our time appeasing terrorists, we used to feature a weekly Flash animation called Flash Friday. The most popular installment to date was our tribute to Dick Cheney's "Undisclosed" location, also known as Site R. (Old post here, direct link to the animation (6MB) there.)

Earlier this week, we received an email from S.K.Johannesen, who recently published an essay on Site R in Queen's Quarterly, a Canadian literary magazine published at Queen's University in Ontario. (You know, one of the Canadian provinces.) With the author's permission, we are happy to reproduce selected portions of the essay, titled "Undisclosed Location," in the extended entry.

Say bonjour!

To Michael Bérubé. Michael "teaches literature and cultural studies at Penn State," although we do not know if he ever had the pleasure of having Miss Amber Pawlik in one of his classes.

Idemi, Idema, life goes on bra

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Three Americans accused of torturing Afghans in a private jail during a freelance counterterror mission went on trial Wednesday, with their ringleader denying any wrongdoing and claiming active U.S. government support.

Jonathan K. Idema, Brett Bennett and Edward Caraballo were arrested when Afghan security forces raided a house in Kabul on July 5. American and Afghan officials say they were vigilantes posing as U.S. special forces and had no official backing.

Appearing before a three-judge panel in a national security court, the three listened quietly to the charges including hostage-taking and torture, and as three of their ex-detainees described how they were beaten, doused with boiling water and deprived of food.

The Americans didn't testify. But Idema said afterward that the abuse allegations were invented. He also said he was in regular phone and e-mail contact with Pentagon officials "at the highest level."

Speaking to reporters crowding round the dock, Idema named a Pentagon official who allegedly asked the group to go "under contract" - an offer they refused. [Emphasis added]

Uh, what name did he give for fuck's sake?

More on Idema here.

Would you settle on being the ex-president instead?

President Bush speaks:

After launching two wars, President Bush said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.

With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq in decline, the Republican president cast himself as a reluctant warrior as he campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa against Democrat John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards. Bush lost the state in 2000 by only a few thousand votes. [...]

"I'm not a lawyer, you'll be happy to hear," Bush said to cheers. "That's the other team. This is the pro-small business team."

He also lashed out at them for not backing an $87 billion funding for the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the country's reconstruction. The two Democrats have said they opposed the funding in opposition to Bush's Iraq policy. [Emphasis added]

Such a positive campaigner that President Bush. As to Reuters' last sentence:

Kerry's staff said he was trying to indicate his support for an amendment funding the appropriation from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. When that amendment failed, he voted against the bill.

and:

Kerry had said that he voted for an alternative Democratic version of the $87-billion package that would have paid for war supplies by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy.

Added: Frederick reviews Bush's earlier enthusiasm about being a war president.

Iraqi prisons, continued

Following our post on the alleged detention of children by US forces in Iraq, we received an email from John Heacock, who served for nearly a year in Iraq with the 267th MP Company from the Tennessee National Guard. With his permission, we reprint here in full.

I hopped a link from Alterman's blog and saw your publicizing of alleged children imprisoned and abused in Iraq.  I spent almost a full year at the main prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, which is near Um Qasr on the SE Iraq-Kuwaiti border.

There was a special compound for kids, defined as younger than 18, mainly those who were picked up with adults (generally relatives like Dads) for crimes or suspicions of crimes.  I think the # peaked at around 60 or so.

I can't comment on any alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib, except to note that my unit's encounters with the 320th MP of PA (4 of whom got nailed for abuse early in the war) and the MD MPs now being pilloried were consistent with their reputation as unprofessional, hyper-aggressive cowboys (and cowgirls).  The one common denominator I've seen among too aggressive guards and MPs is fear: the soldiers who don't have the skills and tools to handle the prisoners with confidence resort to over-the-top intimidation to deter conflict.  These yahoos appeared definitely afraid of the prisoners.  The claim that a child was doused with water, driven around in the cold, and brought before his Dad to get information, is, sadly, quite believable.  At the same time, I know as many soldiers who would have halted such actions if they'd known about it.  Like any other work setting, people figure out who's ethical and who's a psycho pretty quickly, and adjust their behavior accordingly in their presence.

(BTW, you should also look into the story of the 18-year-old Iraqi girl who was held at Abu G for kissing her husband in public, after self-appointed morality police brought her there (her husband, of course, wasn't held).  It made the front page of Stars & Stripes.  A textbook case of nobody having a plan, and nobody taking responsibility in the bureaucracy.)

Getting back to the kids: for the most part, the kids were treated better than the other prisoners.  The majority spoke some level of English, which makes things easier for both guards and prisoners, and reduces miscommunication, confusion, and de-humanization.  One of the biggest problems was adults trying to claim that they were under 18 so they could be held in the kid's compound.  They had different reasons for lying about their age, and none of them were good.  The 2nd worst issue was the "Lord of the Flies" element of the kids forming groups/gangs/cliques, and conflicts between them, although flare-ups manifested themselves more in spats over food or cigarettes, or rough play during soccer games.  The Syrian kids stuck together really well, causing some complaints and intimidation among the other, mainly Iraqi, kids.

Some of the kids clearly suffered from depression or other emotional problems, which shouldn't be too surprising, given their circumstances.  The guards had enough trouble maintaining order and safety in the camp, and lack the ability, training, or time to diagnose and treat emotional problems. 

This goes for adult prisoners too: I remember one guy we nicknamed “Osama” because he looked like Bin Laden.  He was kept in our high-threat detention area, nicknamed "Iraqitraz," which was actually nicer than it sounds: well-shaded, individual cells for those who'd tried to escape or attack guards or other prisoners (the latter being much more common than the former).  Osama was clearly messed up: catatonic/psychotic, occasionally violent. The doctors tried to drug him up with what they had, but I don't think they had the right meds. I talked with one doctor about him, and they were trying to find a medical facility or family to take him, but the doc predicted that he'd just be taken to Baghdad and let out somewhere. (Which, BTW, is how prisoners were released by us: load them on buses, drive them a few hundred miles away, give them $5 each, and drive off).

Back to the kids: I remember trying to see if we could get books or writing materials because some of the kids complained about being bored, and I suggested an informal school, which they liked.  The people at the top of our pecking order were either the MI people, who were more interested in schmoozing with the captured Iraqi officers (a far cry from Abu Ghraib!), or the MP Battalion leadership, who avoided at all costs entering the camp or doing any real work. It fell on deaf ears.

The problems with the treatment of the kids at Camp Bucca was about the same as the flaws with the other prisoners: lack of a policy regarding standards of guilt or length of imprisonment, bureaucratic indifference, laziness of those of high rank whose job it was to process prisoners, scarce resources, and conflicting guidance from above.  Consequently, we had hundreds if not thousands of prisoners that we didn't know why they were being held, who would never be convicted of a crime under any civilized standard of proof, and who spent more time awaiting a hearing than they would have been held in prison if convicted.  A typical example: men held for months for stealing gasoline or butting in lines, when their sentence would have been 2 weeks or 30 days. I once asked the sole JAG attorney (a 1st Lt., BTW, the lowest rank for JAG) why we weren't following the Geneva Convention rules about hearings and length of incarceration, and he expressed shock; when I told him he could go to either the main camp or Iraqitraz to see the shortcomings for himself, he told me that the camp commander wouldn't let him into either site.  It's hard to do your job ensuring that the military follows its rules when you can't even see what's going on.

I hope you are wrong in thinking the shit will really hit the fan when facts about how kids were treated get out, but I'm afraid that you are right.  I hope that the story of the kid at Abu Ghraib is the only incident.  We tried to treat our kids as well as we could, and keep them safe from other prisoners and each other, and did a B+ job.  The fact that the Army doesn't even admit holding juveniles is a telling reflection of how clueless it was about having some plan or philosophy of imprisonment.

--John Heacock

All the President's Goats

It was with a great deal of consternation that we learned yesterday that Amazon had deleted the customer reviews of My Pet Goat. Thanks to Tom and several readers however, we are happy to bring you... All The President's Goats, 50 of the 53 reviews originally posted.