MORE ON MEDIA BIAS I had a long follow-up with my critic, Bernie. Thanks for all your comments, and even a thanks to Bernie for being so kind as to actually detail his critcisms. Here's part of what he wrote, a further explanation of why he doesn't appreciate my weekly columns. I find it hard to believe that you can give identically expressive (or inexpressive) coverage to a subject you have clearly expressed a view on in print, and I am unaware of an anchor man recusal process. How in the world can we watch you cover a story on broadcast, expecting objectivity, having read a charged opinion column on that topic a few days earlier? And second, I would offer that journalism in general and broadcast media in particular—with its responsibility of keeping the public’s trust in exchange for access to limited broadcast spectrum—is held to a standard that requires avoiding even the appearance of bias. I think you subject your station to charges of bias in its broadcast news coverage—certainly based on perception, if not on fact—when you publicly opine in print while you broadcast the news on television. I have a couple of responses to this. First, I heard an interesting story from a comedienne during her act. She told a story about how a woman walked up to her after a show to tell her how much she enjoyed the act, but didn't know why the comedienne had such a "dirty mouth." Our comedatrix explained how that crushed her, but how she eventually began to understand the whole thing was a "control issue." This person wanted to control her. To some extent, I feel the same way about kind explanations from one person opposed to what I say. However, Bernie fails to say if he'd be as opposed to Brit Hume who writes a conservative column in a national newspaper. I'd imagine he still watches Cavuto and the other nimrods at Fox and gives them a pass to express their personal opinions during an actualy news story on-air, which isn't something I do. Also, if Bernie says this bothers him with me, doesn't the opposite also hold true? Those who enjoy my columns would want to tune in to the show, expecting something? (which they still won't see.) And, judging by the letters I get from people who appreciate my self-titled moderate analysis (and it is analysis as well as opinion -- how? I read the news, see the facts, analyze them, and come up with a conclusion) I'm thinking some people would have a diametrically opposed opinion -- I hear criticism about competing stations locally all the time, accusing those stations of "conservative" bias and editorial decisions. Truth be told, we journalists try to follow the old saw, "make comfortable the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." As I've heard time and again (especially from attorney Gerry Spence) telling the truth will often not make one popular. It can hurt, it can lead to all sorts of trouble. But, to paraphrase Mike Wallace on C-SPAN Saturday, we got into this business to tell the truth.

GORE BECOMES TARGET OF CHARACTER ASSASINATION The Bush/Cheney folks and their supporters came screaming out of the dark corners of the media last week when Vice President Gore gave a speech to Moveon.org criticizing the administration. Most interesting, nearly all the criticism was highly ad-hominem in nature, none of it addressed the substance of Gore's speech, which accurately summed up the feelings of those who'd like to send Bush back to Crawford, Texas in November. On CNN, one conservative pundit questioned Gore's sanity. The editors of the Democrat Gazette criticized Gore's physical appearance. The name calling got pretty hot and heavy which is always a sign of exasperation. It also means reading the speech might not be a bad idea (or you could visit C-SPAN online to watch it. So, let's provide a taste of both sides. A good example of the criticism came from the National Review's David Frum. Gore’s speech was so lurid and over-the-top that the utterly outrageous things he said overshadow the merely bizarre. So, here's a sample of that "lurid and over-the-top" speech, "utterly outrageous" in Frum's universe. this speech to Moveon.org constitutes a real departure from reality. Read it, if you see that, let me know, because I have yet to find the departure from reality or anything most people would consider insane. George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world. He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon. Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

MORE MEDIA BIAS I had a long follow-up with my critic, Bernie. Thanks for all your comments, and even a thanks to Bernie for being so kind as to actually detail his critcisms. Here's part of what he wrote, a further explanation of why he doesn't appreciate my weekly columns. I find it hard to believe that you can give identically expressive (or inexpressive) coverage to a subject you have clearly expressed a view on in print, and I am unaware of an anchor man recusal process. How in the world can we watch you cover a story on broadcast, expecting objectivity, having read a charged opinion column on that topic a few days earlier? And second, I would offer that journalism in general and broadcast media in particular—with its responsibility of keeping the public’s trust in exchange for access to limited broadcast spectrum—is held to a standard that requires avoiding even the appearance of bias. I think you subject your station to charges of bias in its broadcast news coverage—certainly based on perception, if not on fact—when you publicly opine in print while you broadcast the news on television. I have a couple of responses to this. First, I heard an interesting story from a comedienne during her act. She told a story about how a woman walked up to her after a show to tell her how much she enjoyed the act, but didn't know why the comedienne had such a "dirty mouth." Our comedatrix explained how that crushed her, but how she eventually began to understand the whole thing was a "control issue." This person wanted to control her. To some extent, I feel the same way about kind explanations from one person opposed to what I say. However, Bernie fails to say if he'd be as opposed to Brit Hume who writes a conservative column in a national newspaper. I'd imagine he still watches Cavuto and the other nimrods at Fox and gives them a pass to express their personal opinions during an actualy news story on-air, which isn't something I do. Also, if Bernie says this bothers him with me, doesn't the opposite also hold true? Those who enjoy my columns would want to tune in to the show, expecting something? (which they still won't see.) And, judging by the letters I get from people who appreciate my self-titled moderate analysis (and it is analysis as well as opinion -- how? I read the news, see the facts, analyze them, and come up with a conclusion) I'm thinking some people would have a diametrically opposed opinion -- I hear criticism about competing stations locally all the time, accusing those stations of "conservative" bias and editorial decisions. Truth be told, we journalists try to follow the old saw, "make comfortable the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." As I've heard time and again (especially from attorney Gerry Spence) telling the truth will often not make one popular. It can hurt, it can lead to all sorts of trouble. But, to paraphrase Mike Wallace on C-SPAN Saturday, we got into this business to tell the truth.

AIR AMERICA FLIES TO VICTORY! This comes courtesy of Daily Kos. Kos writes that criticism of Al Franken and friends aside, Air America has experienced amazing growth and success. I also have it on good authority that, even though Air America was only on the air a couple weeks, WNTD Chicago had the best "Spring Phase 1" ratings in that it had had in the last 12 months (though that was a pretty low bar). ("Spring Phase 1" means the average ratings for February, March, and April combined. Arbitrends don't give figures for single months, they give figures for three-month phases. You have to run the raw numbers through a program called Maximizer to get single-month numbers -- that's what Inside Radio meant by "extrapolated" April numbers.) You decide. Sounds better that what I do. Sounds like Franken has started getting in touch with his audience.

MEDIA BIAS? THE RESPONSE... Where, oh where is Eric Alterman when you need him most? My column in today's Northwest Arkansas Times drew a particularly nasty response from a reader/former viewer of the local NBC-TV station. Not that I enjoy it when people try to whack me, but it does make for interesting conversation. I'll say this right away -- at least I can see a difference between editorial and straight reporting, and if anyone has ever seen me interview any of our local and state politicians, they'll know I give no elected official any kind of softball treatment. But again, everyone does have an opinion. Bernie read the column and writes... Let me get this straight. You offer as proof that the liberal media (your expression, not ours) is fair and balanced a survey taken of yourselves? (Your column, “O president, where art thou,” Northwest Arkansas Times, May 28, 2004) That’s preposterous! So some set of Pew researchers discovered that fifty-four per cent of surveyed journalists consider themselves “moderate.” And fifty-five percent of you think you’ve given the president an “easy ride.” So since you collectively think that of yourselves, it makes it so? Good grief, Don, are you serious? Do you not understand anything about survey bias, surveyed populations, or interpreting survey data? Sadly, you represent the liberal media in Northwest Arkansas very well. And I suppose it wouldn’t be so troubling if it weren’t for your leading a double life. 24/51 tries to project itself as fair, balanced, and providing “coverage [we] can count on.” But they retain as an anchor someone who openly surrenders any sense of objectivity by unabashedly espousing in a weekly newspaper column a clearly liberal bent (though you’d label it “moderate,” I’m sure). And more, your condescending and sarcastic column today makes perfectly clear that you have no tolerance of opposing views, a quality I would expect a broadcast station to value. I am surprised that NBC 24/51 jeopardizes the objectivity of its evening news broadcast by allowing a news anchor (not a reporter, mind you, but its anchor) to do that. How can anyone who reads your weekly column in the Northwest Arkansas Times watch 24/51 news with any expectation that your stories—which I understand you write yourself—are objective? I know I can’t, and my view of 24/51 newscasts has been seriously diminished as a result of reading your weekly one-sided columns. Our family stopped watching you on television when we started subscribing to the newspaper a few months ago and discovered your editorial writing. I doubt one family of viewers makes much difference in 24/51’s Nielsen ratings, but I doubt we’re the only ones disappointed in the situation. Double-life? Bernie, I feel like Batman now. Thanks. Responding to our poll about "does the media treat the President poorly" our friend Alex has a good take on it, and posted this response after voting in our on-line poll. Alex writes... If Bill Clinton had done even a tenth of the things Bush has done, he would have been pilloried in the rightwing-owned media faster than you can say H.L. Mencken. Bush always gets a pass--or at least he did until even the conservative owners of the national news media realized they could no longer cover up the man's incometence as being somehow charming in an "man of the people,anti-smart guy" sort of way. The good news: the myth of the "Liberal Media" has been exposed by the W presidency as just that-- a myth. Alex, I agree. Most of media ownership in this country does have a tendency to donate to the right and some make no bones about taking that view as a good place to start editorially. I just want to know how Fox gets away with it and takes so little heat in the mainstream press and TV.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACCUSES, JUST REMEMBER... Friday In Focus Column, Northwest Arkansas Times -- Don Elkins As you sit in that easy chair watching Fox’s Brit Hume get upset over the rough treatment meted out to President Bush by the media, peeved you have to see more of those prison pictures on the cover of the newspaper, wondering if Rush and Bill are both really right about “the liberal media” (you know, we’re all socialists and communists and all kinds of evil “ists” bent on a godless world agenda) you may want to chew over a few facts. I only bring those facts up as a public service, as a form of anti-snake-bite serum for those of you so polarized even your choice of socks in the morning comes down to either blue or red. That leaves you the option of continuing to think of me as one of “them,” which might make you feel more comfortable – remember, it it’s on Fox or Rush It’s Gotta Be True – or you can just weigh the information for yourself without Michael Savage or Bill O’Reilly yelling at you, telling you what to think. I apologize for the smarm factor in that, but I have to share my frustration with you. Again, the President played a part in all this. To make a long story short, Mr. Bush traveled to Pennsylvania earlier in the week to talk about his plan for getting us out of Iraq. The White House may not have wanted to overplay this first speech, because Mr. Bush will make one of these a week until the June 30th deadline to turnover power to a new Iraqi government. The Oval Office usually notifies the networks if prime-time air space will come in handy to communicate with the voters. With no desire to do that, and with an early version of a tepid (at best) speech sent to network executives loath to give up that 7 p.m. prime viewing hour during a Nielsen ratings period, ABC, NBC and CBS decided to give Mr. Bush a pass. If you have only rabbit-ears on your set at home, you didn’t get to watch it. You could have listened to it on local radio. You could have seen it on cable television. Instead, you got Fear Factor and whatever entertainment programming the other guys had that night. That decision had the phones ringing off the hook – I’d venture something that happened at all the local stations. The accusations? Your station supports John Kerry! Why didn’t you carry the President’s speech? One kind viewer who lives south of the Hopper Tunnel wrote me wondering if local stations would have carried the speech if the speaker had been Senator Kerry, or if Mr. Bush had been a Democrat. Sheesh! Your neighborhood news department had nothing to do with it. I’m a political junkie and would always prefer to see a presidential speech. I spend much of my television viewing time watching C-SPAN and other cable news outlets. Honestly though, any televised speech given by an incumbent president, regardless of party and so close to a general election also qualifies as a campaign ad. Think about that, and think about trying to make a decision on those merits at a higher level. So, again, one segment of the population still feels discriminated against. Self-labeled conservatives just love to hate the media. But take these statements into consideration the next time you feel the urge to hurl flames at “liberal” reporters and writers. Are you familiar with William Kristol? One of the more famous “neo-conservatives” he runs National Review, a conservative publication. Here’s a quote; “I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” Want another? I’m sure you know Pat Buchanan. He doesn’t qualify as a lefty, does he? Here’s what he says about media bias; “I’ve gotten balanced and broad coverage – all we could have asked. For heaven’s sake, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.” Sorry, Pat. Those calls and notes didn’t sound like a joke to me. On the flip side, consider your sources. Tony Snow of Fox News used to fill in for Rush Limbaugh and once worked as the chief speechwriter for President George Bush the Elder. Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News once served as that same president’s chief speech writer. Fine fellows, both, but only if you want to hear a point of view that only moves in one direction, a point of view mired in orthodoxy – an orthodoxy which condemns the media in America and often makes a mockery of the First Amendment. What about the rest of us who don’t work for Roger or Tony or Pat or Bill K.? A recent research project by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism says 54 percent of us (surveyed) consider ourselves moderate. 55 percent think we’ve given Mr. Bush an “easy ride” through most of his term in office. The same study says a majority of us think reporters have become too timid. It also says a big majority of us think pressures to make a profit in the business have started to affect the quality of the stories you read, see and hear. Did we find some common ground in that? Feel the same way? Remember that when you start hearing people blaming the media for “making things tough” on the people in the Oval Office.

ABU GRAIB AND THE BIG ALIBI Despite claims by Secretary Rumsfeld, claims by General Kimmit, claims by the Defense Department in general, a new report shows abuse of prisoners was systemic, and widespread. This report in the New York Times claims and Army survey of mistreatment of prisoners indicates more of what we saw happening at Abu Graib prison happening in other military units. The report also details the ultimate abuse. Homicide. And we haven’t yet heard much about investigations into those murders. All the while (as the President did during his speech in Pennsylvania on Monday) the administration tries to play down the abuse as the work of a “few bad apples.” Perhaps the bad apples work in Washington. And, perhaps they’ve concocted a story line, and alibi if you will, to get themselves out of the prosecutors’ cross-hairs. Flip you radio on and listen to Rush Limbaugh one of these afternoons. You’ll hear the story line. You’ll also hear it from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. How does the tune go? “Why does the liberal media continually show us pictures of what happened at Abu Graib, day after day?” “Why was Abu Graib the lead story in the liberal media for three weeks running?” “Can’t they report anything positive in Iraq?” “The media only shows those photographs because it hates America!” Limbaugh likes to ask how the media can show the pictures of Abu Graib, and “ignore” either those killed in the 9-11 attacks or the victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The storytellers say it isn’t fair to show those pictures without showing 9-11, they claim the media hasn’t told the entire story. They also say the media never paid any attention to the mass graves in Iraq (most networks did indeed show video of mourning Iraqis and some even showed longer documentaries on the subject.) The storytellers, some of them, even go so far as to say no one really got hurt at Abu Graib, no one lost a life! The critics – the Michael Moores, the Richard Clarkes, the Bob Woodwards, John Kerrys, Howard Deans and even the General Anthony Zinnis of America are just right un-patriotic and have personal axes to grind against our pure and good President Bush – that’s another part of the story line. And, that story line is supposed to get you furious. It should, but in the way intended by those who cooked it up. That “story” smacks of the same kind of denial we hear from those on the fringe right who refuse to admit the holocaust happened. Before you react and think that takes the matter too far, look at the similarities. Why would anyone want to gloss over inhumane treatment, torture, abuse and murder? What purpose does it serve? Why defend those who committed these acts? Why ask America to ignore it? And who has the gall to tell us to avert our eyes from the pictures, from the video? After the war in Europe, the people of Germany didn’t believe war crimes and atrocities had taken place just a few feet from their homes. The army dragged these people into the camps. The army made movies filled with some of history’s most horrific images and forced the citizens of the former Reich to sit and watch, to acknowledge what had happened. That country has struggled to the current day admitting those crimes. As for comparing 9-11 and what happened in Abu Graib, how can anyone do that? Do either really have anything to do one with the other in a moral sense? They murdered our people, we did the same to theirs. Where does it say one wrong deserves another? At last check, we had a nation governed by the rule of law. Our soldiers are governed by the rules of war. Each of the members of the Armed Forces carries an identification card which reads in part “ID for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions.” Why would we allegedly take the moral high ground and attack a dictator, decry his abuses and the way he killed and tortured his people, then do the same thing? Doesn’t that bring us to his level? Doesn’t that eradicate our moral imperative and wash us off the high ground? Looking at the pictures, asking tough questions, finding out why it happened, and making sure it doesn’t happen again doesn’t cheapen the memory of the victims of 9-11. It doesn’t affirm the proposition that America has lost in its efforts against terrorism, it doesn’t condone the crimes of Saddam Hussein. It does however, implicate members of the Administration if only in the terms Mr. Bush uses while campaigning and speaking at length about the responsibility of American CEOs. Most of us have seen “The Wizard of Oz.” Most Americans will hopefully hear the echo of the line “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” when listening to the story, the line, the excuses coming from those who fear truth and fear any challenge to the primacy of the current administration and its policies. Those who ask you to ignore crimes and injustice have an ulterior motive, something unwholesome and something that smacks of fear and lies.

PRESIDENT'S FRIENDS TICKED OFF IN TV-LAND Mr. Bush delivered a speech at the National War College last night, the first in a series of talks aimed at shoring up his base, with an alleged goal of precisely laying out his plan for Iraq. He outlined five steps during the speech last night, but as the pundits pointed out afterward, he really didn't do much more than restate what the administration has said all along -- stay the course. Some observers said all his speech did was manage to rally the "base" and further tick off opponents. More interesting, of course, were the repsonses I got last night from viewers. Seems the networks decided not the show the speech during prime-time. Instead, most opted to show the speech on cable. Some radio stations carried it live. We got several calls from viewers who don't have cable TV who were angry about missing the speech. Staff said many of those who picked up the phone to moan about it accused the station of being "pro-Kerry" and threatened to never watch us again. Another viewer used e-mail to question if we'd have shown the speech if Mr. Bush was a Democrat or if John Kerry had spoken. Many of these people didn't realize the networks made the decision not to carry the speech during a high traffic, expensive advertising block on a sweeps night toward the end of the Neilsen book. Truth is, I'd have carried it if the speech came from a Republican or Democrat...I'd love to see more coverage of politics, not less. And of course, the President plans to make one of these each week before the June 30th turnover of power in Iraq, so chances are you'll get the hear the same speech over and over again. So, why don't y'all shut up and go watch either TVland or Fox News next time, or hey, try this novel idea --shell out a couple of bucks for cable or a cheap radio and get off our backs. If I owned and ran the station, I'd play it. I don't, so I can't guarantee our young Mr. President local air-time.

CAUTION, ADULT CONTENT! This one is old. It came from a link in a story on Wired News, but it made me laugh out loud for about an hour. It originally came from a story about conservative bloggers "google-bombing" John Kerry with the word "waffles." It backfired, and has ended up instead providing web links to the copy "read about President Bush's waffles" which leads (among other destinations) to the Kerry website when you enter the phrase while using most major search engines. However, this little piece of history (from January) comes later in the article. The sheer unexpected nature of it just struck me as hilarious, no partisan politics (OK, a little) involved. Just about gave me an asthma attack at home when I read it. Ah, Comedy Central should hire these writers at Wired. (BTW, apologies for the strong language, but this is a blog, and nOt the nightly news or the morning paper, so I figure we can at least run the reference. There's an old schoolyard taunt that goes, "When you look up 'stupid' in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of George." Well, here's a tech spin on that insult, only this one is not for kids. When you type "dumb motherfucker" into Google, the search engine's top result is a site about President Bush. What are the chances of that, I ask?

FORMER MARINE CHIEF AIMS ACCUSING FINGER AT BUSH AND CO. Interesting turn of events here...this comes from Josh Marshall's blog (among other places) Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine General Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option. "The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course," he tells Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. What's better? Zinni has joined Tom Clancey to write a new book. As another blogger put it, when you're a Republican president and you've lost Ton Clancy, I think it's over.

RELIGIOUS WARPATH Far be it from me to go on my own personal "jihad" but I'm about too. I'm not a fan of fat-boy Bush press chief Scott McCellan. Less so now I've discovered something about his mother, Carol Strayhorn, the comptroller of the State of Texas. Do you like Carol's picture? Enjoy her Elvis-sized cross hanging around her neck? Seems she likes religions, just not mine. She became the first state official anywhere to deny Unitarian Universalists status as a religion -- no tax exemption for them. Oddly enough, both Presidents with the last name Adams were Unitarians, as was Ralph Waldo Emerson. Strayhorn explains her little stunt this way; she says to qualify for the tax exemption, a "church" has to have a uniform belief system in a God or Gods. My suggestion? Carol, bite me! If you can read this, send her an e-mail at wosg@cpa.state.tx.usand give her your righteous 2-cents worth. I can honestly say I've never given money to any political campaign, but will make a point of finding out who plans to run against this woman so I can make a donation.

RADIO UPDATE Because of baseball, we've let last week's show repeat on-air. However, I have added an hour which did not air on local radio, just for everyone here. As such, I let it get a little heated under the collar (for me at least) and I hope you enjoy it.

SBC STRIKE Hang in there CWA! I have to say that because I'm a little biased. My dear mother is a CWA Vice Pres. in the Salt Lake City area. I once worked as a union organizer with AFTRA in Chicago while working for the Chicago Tribune Company. These folks (the ones in Northwest Arkansas) called me before walking out and wanted to remind everyone that one of the things they're protesting is a plan by SBC to "outsource" jobs. Just remember, over 100,000 of these folks are on the line, fighting for better pricing and quality of healthcare, not to mention a medium standard of living for their families. Have I said enough?

WAR CRIMES PAPERS Thought you should see the actual files connected with that newsweek piece on war crimes and the administration. If you'll recall (or simply scroll down) White House Counsel Roberto Gonzalez advised Mr. Bush to excuse himself from the Geneva Conventions. Why? He thought lawmakers might use the 1996 War Crimes Act to bring charges against the administration, so here ya go. Document -- The memo (.pdf 803kb)

PREVARICATION IN WASHINGTON Friday In Focus Column, Northwest Arkansas Times --Don Elkins “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” from Marmion, Sir Walter Scott Just for the sake of irony, Sir Walter also wrote the words, “Hail to the Chief…” and so on, which James Sanderson put to music. That same music heralds the arrival of the President of the United States at most public events, but the first quote applies more properly here, because the administration managed to weave that “tangled web” and get caught in it at least twice this week. The first time, the General Accounting Office, which serves as an investigative arm of Congress, had some bad news. GAO says Mr. Bush and company broke the law pushing the Medicare reform package. The specific violation? Using taxpayer funds to disseminate propaganda. Seems the White House hired to public relations firms to produce phony news reporters, along with phony news reporters. In those reports, the faux journalists delivered stories about the tremendous benefits of the bill. According to Robert Pear at the New York Times, those fake reports aired on some 40 stations in 33 television markets. The Accounting office also describes those fake reports as “not strictly factual news stories,” containing “notable flaws and weaknesses” pumping up the Medicare package. And the so-called “reporters” never explained to viewers who signed their checks. The federal government did, but apparently forgot to let people in the television news business know what was going on before sending the “stories” out on satellite. The cost came to more than $42,000 worth of your tax dollars for propaganda. The punishment for this type of fibbery comes to nothing more than a report from the Department of Health and Human Services to Congress and an explanation of what the administration has done to fix the problem. GAO even describes the mess up as most likely unintentional. That’s not the case with a big story in Newsweek sure to make a few eyebrows rise. Newsweek claims it has an official White House memo from Chief Bush attorney Roberto Gonzalez (a possible future US Supreme Court nominee) advising the President to excuse the United States Armed Forces from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. According to the magazine, Mr. Gonzalez felt if the President failed to do that, lawmakers and a future administration could foreseeably bring him and other members of the government up on war crimes charges at some later date. Chief Counsel Gonzalez worried most about “new and unorthodox” methods Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld planned to use in the “war on terror.” Some of those unorthodox methods came to light in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee over the past couple of weeks. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois had sharp questions for Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz about the “rules of engagement” for interrogating prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, rules propagated by Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the ground commander in Iraq. Those rules allowed “stress positions” and “sensory manipulation” along with “sleep manipulation” and “dietary adjustment.” Translated into English, that means “making prisoners stand or sit in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time.” Along with keeping them awake for 72 hours and not feeding them. Mr. Wolfowitz publicly agreed with Senator Durbin that those techniques contravened the Geneva Conventions, and the rules of the Army. General Sanchez later changed all that after the Abu Grab torture photos got lots of airtime on both American television and behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. But what would worry the White House about that? Something passed by Congress in 1996 known as the War Crimes Act. As Newsweek explains, that law prohibits Americans (specifically “U.S. Officials”) from grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The penalty? As much as death. But did the administration have the right to excuse itself from the law? Even if it did, was it right to do so? Rest assured at least half of Congress will burn the midnight oil trying to find both legal and moral answers to that question. In the meantime, a series of highly decorated military leaders will continue to act like they don’t know who to blame when asked to explain who had responsibility for what happened at that prison in Baghdad. So, the taxpayers have two bent rules to think about. One may have been unintentional, one seems done with quite a bit of forethought. One aimed to misinform voters the other looks intended to keep a certain Chief Executive’s bacon out of the fire. Do either speak well of an administration at least verbally committed to spreading democracy and freedom beyond the borders of our nation? Do either speak well of a man who promised to bring trust and honor back to the White House? Will either warrant an explanation or more than that, an apology to the taxpayers and voters? Again, everyone makes mistakes, but when the motives behind those mistakes look suspect, we need to heed the warning signs and start asking tougher questions about what’s going on inside the beltway.

A brief diary of the Arkansas Primaries PRIMARY IN SEARCH OF A STORYLINE On May 17th, the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office expected between 15 and 20 percent of Arkansans to visit the polls to cast ballots in the statewide primaries. Math and six electoral votes for the state usually mean our primaries don’t draw much attention, even within our borders. This year, the national political campaigns have dumped cash in Arkansas, buying plenty of TV ad time and going all out to showcase the candidates for the White House in highly staged visits. That means television crews can pretty much count out any chance of interviews. Regardless of that high profile attention, most observers considered the outcome of the primaries a forgone conclusion. Senator John Kerry defeated Congressman Dennis Kucinich and long-time crank Lyndon LaRouche to gain the state’s Democratic nomination for the Oval Office. The party also nominated Senator Blanche Lincoln for a second term in D.C. In Bella Vista, House District 98 Representative Shirley Borhauer managed to handily defeat self-titled “gadfly” Jim Parsons in the Republican primary. In Washington County, Tim Helder managed to grab a win in the Democratic primary for County Sheriff, and faces no competition from Republicans in November. The only race which really had reporters scratching their collective heads came in the Republican primary for November’s Senate race against Blanche Lincoln. State Senator Jim Holt faced former Benton County Sheriff Andy Lee and former KFC ad star Rosemarie Clampitt of Hot Springs. If you read the right-leaning editorial pages of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette in the days leading up the election, you’d have learned about Holt and Lee’s attempts to “out-right” each other. THE CAST OF CHARACTERS The newspaper decided not to call that particular race, leaving that to voters, and simultaneously urging those voters only to do so after some “serious prayer”– a tongue-in-cheek reference to the way both Holt and Lee frequently dragged God and religion into their campaigns. Holt employed the familiar Christian “fish” symbol on his campaign signs. Lee said he wanted to see more God in government, but wouldn’t explain just how much of the deity would suffice. Holt won (?) votes by asserting the U.S. Supreme Court posed more of a threat to America than Al-Qaeda. Local newspapers chided him on that remark, calling it “over the top.” By way of explanation, Holt argued that Roe v. Wade claimed more American lives than the 9-11 hijackers. Lee argued troops should come home from the Middle East, and take up positions on the Mexican border. Even conservatives couldn’t decide which one to pick. BEHIND THE SCENES On primary night, all the main players, with the exception of Senator Lincoln, who had to stay in Washington because of votes, held local watch parties. During the course of the evening, after the polls closed, stories more interesting than the actually campaigns started to circulate. WAL-MART CAUGHT RED-HANDED? Supporters of Jim Holt claimed to have intercepted an e-mail sent to Wal-Mart employees from company headquarters. Sources at the Holt watch party showed an alleged copy to reporters, who later described the e-mail as initially benign, urging workers to exercise the franchise and vote. The missive listed candidates and and provided a brief description of each. Something else in the note caught the attention of campaign volunteers. They say the note described Andy Lee as “former Benton County Sheriff” but did not describe Jim Holt in terms quite as balanced. Campaign workers say Wal-Mart described Holt as the State Senator who opposed a liquor license for a local Sam’s Club earlier this year. Did that mean anything? Had the company implied employees should vote against Holt, who has in the past managed to speak out against members of his own party? Had Wal-Mart essentially engaged in a dirty political trick? The jury remains out on that, but expect reporters to follow up as campaign season matures. HOLT V. LINCOLN Shortly after Holt’s victory, NBC 24-51 reporter Rhonda Justice got the joyous interview with the winner. She asked Holt to define the differences between himself and his November opponent. Holt proceeded to do his best to define the entire race, calling himself “pro-life” and describing Lincoln as opposed to that. A minute later, Lincoln joined the newscast by Satellite from Washington. Asked about that, she side-stepped the question and said, “I’m pro child.” Although the Senator won’t do much trembling in her boots because of that, the issue does signal a direction in which observers can cast their eyes as the campaign continues. One analyst said afterward that the Holt campaign will do everything it can to follow the national Republican strategy of trying to define opponents as “fence sitters” and “flip-floppers.” However, at least one Republican pollster, John Zogby, doesn’t think that will work nationally. Without taking sides, the smart money says it won’t work against Lincoln in Arkansas this fall. You’ll have to conduct your own poll to find out. BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT In the Washington County Sheriff’s race to replace Steve Whitmill, who left early to take a job with Tyson Foods, Tim Helder had little problems mopping up Jovey Marshall. How strong was voter support? A source with the Washington County Election Commission reported getting calls from Republicans upset they couldn’t vote for Helder on their ballot. Helder appeared as a Democrat, and so did his opponent, meaning only those signing up as Democrats could support him. However, all those bi-partisan voters can show their support for Helder in November, even though he faces no opponent. Consider it the political equivalent of applause. POST NO BILLS, CIRCULATE NO PETITIONS One other story crossed journalistic radar screens that Tuesday. Some polling places in both Washington and Benton Counties complained about people circulating petitions against a statewide initiative to block an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The petition passers apparently got the word to move several hundred yards back from the entrance to the polls in accordance with state law. ON TO NOVEMBER So, when the air starts to cool off, and everyone is worried about Razorback football again, which races will draw the most heat and the biggest spotlights? Most likely none of the ones we watched in May. However, the foregone conclusions and results we saw in the Arkansas presidential primaries will most likely become less of a certainty. Kerry v. Bush will take top billing in November.

ARKANSAS PRIMARIES Hello all! I've had a nice few days off. Just about dislocated my right shoulder trying to start a lawnmower this weekend, so I've taken a few days off. I don't know if the show actually made it to air Saturday night, but I've put up most of it in the right column. Today is obviously a "big day" in state politics, though it is also one of the more boring primaries we've had. No sitting Congressman (and yes, they are all men) faces a primary opponent, so the fun will come in November. Here is a list of the races we will follow today. US President Sen. John F. Kerry (D) Lyndon LaRouche (D) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) US Senate Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) incumbent Lisa Burks (D) Sen. Jim Holt (R) Andy Lee (R) Rosemarie Clampitt (R) State House/Senate Benton County House Dist. 98 Rep. shirley Borhauer (R) incumbent Jim Parsons (R) Washington County House Dist. 87 (was Sarah Agee (R)) Leonard Fredrick (R) Mark Martin (R) Polk County House Dist. 22 (was Steve Oglesby (D)) Bill Abernathy (D) Ray B. Stanley (D) Sebastian County House Dist. 63 (was Kevin Pennix (R)) Mike Helm (R) Frank Glidewell (R) Joey McCutchen (R) Arkansas Supreme Court Assoc. Justice, Position 4 Judge Collins Kilgore Judge Paul Danielson Judge Jim Gunter Chief Justice Judge Wendell L. Griffen Justice Jim Hannah The DemGaz wouldn't call the Republican Senate primary. We will. It'll go to Jim Holt, completely pleasing Senator Lincoln, who can relax this summer. OK, maybe not (yes, the relax part will be easy -- but the winner of this? Who can really say?) Interesting characters. Holt describes himself as a former birkenstock wearing, evolution believing liberal Democrat who had (?) a religious experience. He says the Supreme Court has killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda through the Roe v. Wade decision. His campaign signs has the good ol' Christian fish on them. Andy Lee has a long history of run-ins with the media over a plethora of subjects during his tenure as Sheriff of Benton County. He advocates pulling troops out of Iraq and stationing them on the Mexican border. Think Pat Buchanan on steroids. Both are far right enough of center to frighten even conservative Republican voters. Neither would have a chance to migrate back to the center before the election -- a patch of ground firmly controlled by Blanche Lincoln, who has built a mighty fortress there. So, we don't feel too bad calling a primary race that essentially will mean nothing in November. The rest of the races just don't do too much to stir up anyone's interest, unfortunately. If you want too, you can catch my post-mortem of the primaries in next months edition of Citiscapes Metro Monthly Magazine, along with a little more about my hour-long TV interview with perennial crank Lyndon LaRouche. We predict LaRouche will once again lose. As much as we admire his mindless hatred of Vice President Cheney, we think he'd be more at home with the likes of the Rev. Moon than with Congress and the West Wing.

DISREGARDING THE RULES OF WAR, THE RULES OF HUMANITY So, think like a fascist, act like a fascist. This column in the Post tells it like it is. More on how this administration decided the basic rules of Western Civilization no longer apply to it...eerie, because it sounds like a story I once heard about a certain European nation in the 1940s, run by a small man with a strange looking moustache and a penchant for grabbing "detainees" and beating the snot out of them before killing them. I didn't say exactly, just strangely similar. Even harsher methods have been approved for Guantanamo and for facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere where the Bush administration is holding detainees it says are "unlawful combatants" under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. These methods have not been officially disclosed, but according to reports in The Post and the New York Times, they include questioning detainees while they are naked, withholding their pain medication and submerging them under water so as to simulate drowning.

JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE, WELL, A MORON This piece on CNN doesn't usually fit the bill for something I'd put here, but I noticed it, and wondered why it annoyed me so much. Ms. Spears isn't really my cup of tea when it comes to music, but she beats the hell out of the whiny, nasty little girl with a big mouth who claims to sing "Christian" music. It made me realize why so many Americans detest the far religious right. "Those people" tend to be very judgemental about most moral issues, rather than keeping their noses where said appendages belong -- out of other people's business. Makes me wonder if Mom and Pop Christian Singer ever told their daughter she was a busy-body. Ah, but sweet Karma always seems to have something else planned for those in the "better-than-thou" crowd. Just ask Newt, he'll tell ya. See also, "Gay Marriage" and "Gay marriage amendent, Bush."

BECK STRIKES AGAIN Continuing his march toward Radio Jerry Springerhood, his quest for the crown of lunacy and overwhelming flatulence, Glenn Beck had two kind words for Nick Berg's father..."scum-bag." Why is Beck going out of his way toward robothood? Read more about it here.

LUNATIC FRINGE I'm stricken by how much the arguments spouted by the far-right against gay marriage sound like the arguments people made against school integration, civil rights, the vote for women and other progressive political changes which have improved America. I watched video of some of the marriages Monday in Massachusetts. The only strange thing I noticed was a woman protesting against the marriages, a woman screaming and jumping up and down, clearly out of her ever-living-cotton-picking mind. I don't know if she'd just smoked crack or what had happened, but when the Reverend Fred Phelps of Kansas is your standard bearer (or if Dr. Dobson gets on your side) something is seriously wrong. People who spend the majority of their waking hours hating other Americans (for a living) need psychiatric help. So, for your reading pleasure, I have this little quote from that most upset of all fringe-oids, the Cardinal of Colorado Springs, Dr. D-Dufus-Dobson...(read more.) "We will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this as the day marriage ceased to have any real meaning in our country," said Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top, but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years." Dr. D needs to focus on his own family first. Maybe we should pass a constitutional amedment guarateeing the freedom from hectoring pinheads like the good Doctor. That's seems like a fairly American thing to do.

GEORGE, START LOOKING FOR THE LIFE PRESERVER The Abu Graid pics and the continuing flow of information coming from reporters, as well as a whopping big collection of video and the like, mean the Abu Graib pic scandal won't go away. Mr. Rumsfeld can run, but, as they say, hiding still may not save his hide as the days wind on toward November. Here's the latest Newsweek poll figures on how the tide has changed for the "war-time" president this past few weeks.

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT Found this on an extreme right-wing site. Made me laugh...but it also got me mad. In fairness, perhaps it should be said about the Arab street that given the anti-American leanings of our own press, the true picture of the Arab street isn't making it to us, here in the States, and thereby to the rest of the world. Yeah, we're "anti-American." You know what? I served my country. John Kerry served his country. John McCain served his country. And the "press?" That big, singled-minded entity? It's made up of thousands of individuals, more often than not dedicated to individualism. Most of us are notoriously beligerant. It's tough to get us to agree on anything. Most of us value America, and the First Amendment. Ah, yes, you remember that tattered document? The one which gives me the right to dissent at will and about as often as I'd like? Dissent is American. Without it, the damn nation doesn't work the way it's supposed to. If you want unity, efficiency, cleanliness and godliness, buy yourself a ticket to Iran. In the meantime, get off the backs of the press! It always serves as a straw man for the bleeding-soul conservatives who can't stand civil rights, who can't stand justice, who can't stand any kind of "live and let live" concept. If you're feeling patriotic, cheer on the people who caught the abuses in the Abu Graib prison. Cheer on the members of the Senate who put the heat on General Sanchez to change his Gestapo-style interrogation tactics. Remember, the "conservative" Senator John McCain said torture only gets a prisoner to tell an interrogator what the interrogator wants to hear, not the truth. Didn't we feel morally superior to the Soviets, to the Nazis, to Franco, to Ortega and every other cut-rate dictator because we behaved like the world's beacon of human rights? Why did all those immigrants come to this nation, why did all the defectors risk their lives to get across the Berlin Wall? Wasn't it to exercise their freedom of expression and to escape the knock of doom on the door in the middle of the night from the secret police? It gets me hot under the collar to even be having this discussion in America.

POSITIVE-GANDA OK -- I've had several people send me a lengthy email allegedly from either a member of the Iowa National Guard or the USMC. In it, the servicemember spanks the media, and goes on at great length to list the positive things the media hasn't covered in Iraq. My only conclusion after reading a check of the facts is that the thing isn't on the up-and-up. I told someone Vice President cheney's wife Lynne sounded like she recited a short version of this letter during he speech at the Lincoln Day dinner in springdale Tuesday night. This page, Truthorfiction.com, goes through each of the several claims A message said to be from an Iowa Army National Guardsman named Ray Reynolds who is serving in Iraq. It lists a number of improvements in Iraq since the U.S. led incursion in 2003.

BERG PART TWO Berg's father Michael had some very strong words for the administration this week. My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," -- Michael Berg By way of explanation, this item sheds some light on Berg's anger. WEST CHESTER, Pa. (AP) — A U.S. diplomatic official in Iraq told the family of slain American Nicholas Berg in early April that he was being detained by the U.S. military, according to e-mails provided by the family Thursday. Here's one of the emails from a Foreign Service officer to the Berg Family published in USA Today. April 1, 1:26 a.m. (To Michael Berg, Berg's father) I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the U.S. military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly.

THE BERG STORY..AND VIDEO I've struggled with this for a couple of days. I watched the video of the murder of Mr. Berg. It turned my stomach and made me angry. I watched it with others. Many of those people immediately chimed in with "we should get the nukes and turn that country into a parking lot." I understand that anger. However, the people of Iraq didn't kill Mr. Berg, a group of fanatics did, a group of criminals who have little or no value for a human life, least of all their own. Iraq has no monopoly on that major malfunction. I remain optimistic about humanity. Most of us simply want to work, have a home, enjoy our lives, see our children succeed and enjoy the benefits of peace and freedom, the more -- the better. Again, as it is in almost every country, a minority of people with weapons and the will to use them terrorize the rest of us. A group of people with lunatic notions and lunatic ideologies do their best to bring utter chaos and ruin to the rest of us, who would probably get along peacefully as neighbors in a shrinking world. I believe in showing what happens. I think everyone should see the films made of the victims of the holocaust. I don't think the government should stop us from showing the pictures of coffins flying home from Iraq. The media shouldn't have censored itself during the war. We should have see the reality. Turn your eyes away if you can, but that's not reality, and that's not a path to a better world. I'm providing this windows streaming media copy of the murder of Berg, from Ogrish.com. I don't like most of the content at this website, but it has provided a non-censored look at some of the most terrifying video from the past couple of years. I have to warn you, this is very graphic, and in my opinion, the audio makes it worse. This man has his head sawed off, it's as simple and as brutal as that. The people who do it to him are beneath comtempt and deserving of justice. But we have spent so much time writing and reading about this, I feel compelled to at least make it available to you if you want to see it. Berg Murder.

THE BERG STORY..AND VIDEO I've struggled with this for a couple of days. I watched the video of the murder of Mr. Berg. It turned my stomach and made me angry. I watched it with others. Many of those people immediately chimed in with "we should get the nukes and turn that country into a parking lot." I understand that anger. However, the people of Iraq didn't kill Mr. Berg, a group of fanatics did, a group of criminals who have little or no value for a human life, least of all their own. Iraq has no monopoly on that major malfunction. I remain optimistic about humanity. Most of us simply want to work, have a home, enjoy our lives, see our children succeed and enjoy the benefits of peace and freedom, the more -- the better. Again, as it is in almost every country, a minority of people with weapons and the will to use them terrorize the rest of us. A group of people with lunatic notions and lunatic ideologies do their best to bring utter chaos and ruin to the rest of us, who would probably get along peacefully as neighbors in a shrinking world. I believe in showing what happens. I think everyone should see the films made of the victims of the holocaust. I don't think the government should stop us from showing the pictures of coffins flying home from Iraq. The media shouldn't have censored itself during the war. We should have see the reality. Turn your eyes away if you can, but that's not reality, and that's not a path to a better world. I'm providing this windows streaming media copy of the murder of Berg, from Ogrish.com. I don't like most of the content at this website, but it has provided a non-censored look at some of the most terrifying video from the past couple of years. I have to warn you, this is very graphic, and in my opinion, the audio makes it worse. This man has his head sawed off, it's as simple and as brutal as that. The people who do it to him are beneath comtempt and deserving of justice. But we have spent so much time writing and reading about this, I feel compelled to at least make it available to you if you want to see it. Berg Murder.

WHAT DID HE KNOW, WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? Frontpage of on-line edition of USA Today. It gets harder and harder to believe anything come of Washington every day. WASHINGTON — Pentagon and White House officials missed numerous opportunities to head off abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, according to interviews, testimony and public documents that have emerged since the scandal erupted last month.From red flags raised months ago by prison guards at other facilities in Iraq to letters from lawmakers and non-government groups, the Pentagon and the Bush administration received a variety of complaints many months before the abuses began last fall.

A CHARACTER STUDY This piece purports to give us the lowdown on the background of at least one of the soldiers accused of abuse inside Abu Ghraib. UNIONTOWN, Pa. - Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., the military policeman photographed with a big smile as he stood behind a pile of naked Iraq prisoners, was a target of abuse allegations long before he was singled out by an Army investigator as His ex-wife once accused him of dragging her out of a room by her hair and trying to throw her down the stairs during a fight over their breakup. the worst of the guards in the Baghdad scandal. And this piece by psychotic former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer gives you some idea of the weak excuses being employed by the far right in this nation to deflect the damage to the administration's reputation. ...this seems entirely lost on the many politicians and commentators who have simply lost their bearings in the Abu Ghraib panic. The prize in Iraq is not praise for America from the Arab street nor goodwill from al-Jazeera. We did not have these before Abu Ghraib. We will not have these after Abu Ghraib. The prize is a decent, representative, democratizing Iraq that abandons the pan-Arab fantasies and cruelties of Saddam Hussein's regime. What an apologist! From the other side, and one of the most on-the-nose assessments of an argument where none should exist comes from the op-ed page of the New York Times. But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture.

WHO'S TO BLAME? Why not ask the Army Times, a publication with less than "liberal" credentials, which opined on the editorial page that Rumsfeld should give it up. Maybe that's why he told the troops in Baghdad Thursday he "no longer reads the newspapers." This comes to us courtesy Sidney Blumental... One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld".

WHO'S TO BLAME? Why not ask the Army Times, a publication with less than "liberal" credentials, which opined on the editorial page that Rumsfeld should give it up. Maybe that's why he told the troops in Baghdad Thursday he "no longer reads the newspapers." This comes to us courtesy Sidney Blumental... One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld".

POLITICS UNUSUAL From over the border in Oklahoma, this tidbit tripped from the lips of perenially challenged (in a moral sense) Senator Inhofe. "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment…I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying." "Do-gooders?" Who is this guy, freakin' Lex Luthor? Does he want human rights violations? Can he run for office on that in the Sooner State? Here's another example of how we've lost our way, and how we seem to be taking lessons from either the mob or Saddam himself when conducting intelligence operations. US officials have acknowledged detaining women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information: a strategy that is in violation of international law. So, we get you, we find your family, if you hesitate, we'll put a horse-head in your bed...

MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN, AS POLICY Testimony coming from the Defense Department to the Senate Armed Services Committee is amazing. Here's an excerpt from the New York Times which details some of that thinking; That decision allowed Mr. Reed's questioning, first to General Pace. He said: "If you were shown a video of a United States marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cellblock, naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" "I would describe it as a violation, sir," General Pace replied. Mr. Reed then cited a list of interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq last October by the top commander there, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army. Some techniques required General Sanchez's approval, including sensory deprivation, solitary confinement beyond 30 days and "stress positions" like prolonged periods of standing or crouching. "As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," Mr. Reed said. Military officials said later that General Sanchez had never been asked to approve such treatment and that Mr. Reed's example would not have been approved... I'll write this now, because I really mean it; You cannot be an American, a human being, worthy of sitting in a church, if you condone torture and abuse. If you think the U.S. military should use either to forward its ends, you've lost a war already -- the Second World War, when we overcame an inhumane enemy which used the same techniques. These techniques, if ordered by General Sanchez, if accepted as part of the "rules of engagement" by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. put our military in the company of the Nazi SS, the KGB and every other human rights violating military or police organization which ever beat a dissenter, banged on the door in the middle of the night or "disappeared" innocent people. Secretary Rumsfeld this week said the Geneva Conventions shouldn't necessarily apply to everyone. Try this on for size -- how about the Geneva Conventions still apply to our people in uniform, who shouldn't be ordered to violate them. No president who publicly tells the nation his favorite philospher is Jesus Christ should have anything to do with that kind of insane, inhumane policy. If we bow that far down, we become no better than the people who attacked the World Trade Centers.

MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN, AS POLICY Testimony coming from the Defense Department to the Senate Armed Services Committee is amazing. Here's an excerpt from the New York Times which details some of that thinking; That decision allowed Mr. Reed's questioning, first to General Pace. He said: "If you were shown a video of a United States marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cellblock, naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?" "I would describe it as a violation, sir," General Pace replied. Mr. Reed then cited a list of interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq last October by the top commander there, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army. Some techniques required General Sanchez's approval, including sensory deprivation, solitary confinement beyond 30 days and "stress positions" like prolonged periods of standing or crouching. "As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," Mr. Reed said. Military officials said later that General Sanchez had never been asked to approve such treatment and that Mr. Reed's example would not have been approved... I'll write this now, because I really mean it; You cannot be an American, a human being, worthy of sitting in a church, if you condone torture and abuse. If you think the U.S. military should use either to forward its ends, you've lost a war already -- the Second World War, when we overcame an inhumane enemy which used the same techniques. These techniques, if ordered by General Sanchez, if accepted as part of the "rules of engagement" by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. put our military in the company of the Nazi SS, the KGB and every other human rights violating military or police organization which ever beat a dissenter, banged on the door in the middle of the night or "disappeared" innocent people. Secretary Rumsfeld this week said the Geneva Conventions shouldn't necessarily apply to everyone. Try this on for size -- how about the Geneva Conventions still apply to our people in uniform, who shouldn't be ordered to violate them. No president who publicly tells the nation his favorite philospher is Jesus Christ should have anything to do with that kind of insane, inhumane policy. If we bow that far down, we become no better than the people who attacked the World Trade Centers.