From Juan Cole

Just posted:

Heavy Fighting in Karbala

AP is reporting heavy fighting in Karbala between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and US forces, with the Shiite militiamen taking heavy casualties, some 25 estimated dead. The US used heavy firepower in the sacred Shiite city, destroying half of the historic al-Mukhayyam Mosque not so far from the shrine of the Prophet's martyred grandson, Imam Husain. For Shiites, this is as though a Muslim army was fighting in Vatican City and damaged a Renaissance-era church near the basilica of St. Peter. You wonder if the US can survive its victory in Karbala.

Quotes from Muqtada al-Sadr today:

"I appeal to the fighters and mujahedeen in Karbala to stand together so as none of our holy sites and cities are defiled. We are prepared for any American escalation and we expect one . . . Let remind you of Vietnam. We are an Iraqi people that has faith in God, and his prophet and his family. The means of victory that are available to us are much more than what the Vietnamese had. And, God willing, we shall be victorious . . . Look at what they have done. Look what the torture they have committed against our detainees. Could anyone who came to rid us of Saddam do this?"

Well, I must admit that given the full text of al-Sadr's comments, I'm much less optimistic about the outcome of negotiations.

The Message

May 11, 2004, 11:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your hospitality, and thank you for your leadership. You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror. You're doing a superb job. You are a strong Secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.

and today:

Rumsfeld Backs Iraq Interrogation Methods
Wednesday May 12, 2004 6:01 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.

***

...Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. said some of the approved techniques ``go far beyond the Geneva Convention,'' a reference to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we signed on to the Geneva Convention not to protect the bad guys, but our own soldiers. Poor Nick Berg was a civilian, but let's imagine for a moment he was wearing the uniform. That's what's next.

Gasoline

Yesterday we stormed a mosque in Karbala:

U.S. Military Strikes Mosque Held by Iraqi Cleric's Militia



KARBALA, Iraq, Wednesday, May 12 - The American military attacked a mosque in this holy city on Tuesday in its largest assault yet against the forces of the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, even as the first signs emerged of a peaceful resolution to the five-week-long standoff with him.

The strike on the Mukhaiyam Mosque brought hundreds of American soldiers to within a third of a mile of two of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam, the shrines of the martyrs Hussein and Abbas. A building behind the mosque was fired on, detonating a huge weapons cache, and soldiers stormed the mosque, chasing insurgents out into a hotel and alley.

By 3:30 a.m. Wednesday, some 30 insurgents had taken up positions around the Shrine of Abbas, and they appeared to be lobbing mortars from that area at the Mukhaiyam Mosque. Special Forces soldiers began organizing groups of Iraqi forces to counterattack. Fighting was still intense five hours later. Casualties could not be immediately determined.

Until now, American forces had kept out of Karbala and nearby Najaf, another holy city, fearing to further inflame Iraqi fury against the occupying forces, now fevered because of widely distributed photographs of American personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Also yesterday, Juan Cole wrote of the negotiations going on between Sadr & the sons of Shia leaders, hoping to achieve a peaceful resolution to the standoff in Najaf:

A statement issued by Muqtada's office in Najaf suggested that he would end his insurgency in the Shiite south on condition that the Americans agree to direct negotiations with him, a demand that the US had rejected up until this point.

The grand ayatollahs of Najaf clearly anticipate a major blow-up if these final negotiations fail. They have sent their wives and children to stay with relatives outside Najaf, but are remaining in the city themselves. The four grand ayatollahs include Ali Sistani, Muhammad Sa'id al-Hakim, Bashir al-Najafi, and Muhammad Fayyad.

Al-Hayat says that in recent negotiations between Muqtada and the sons of the grand ayatollahs, they have managed to convince him that he will simply have to leave Najaf.

Today, Sadr gave a press conference, which given the above from Al Hayat, seems to have been a way to publicly save face for Sadr, by demanding particulars he'd already agreed to:

Radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has vowed to continue his fight against US forces in Iraq but says he will disband his militia if asked by Shia leaders.
"If the US wants to leave Iraq it will bring peace, but their presence will lead to more terrorism," he said.

It was Sadr's first press conference since his Mehdi Army rebelled in April.

Shia talks are continuing in Najaf to find ways to end to the Sadr uprising, as US forces battle his militia in several southern Iraqi cities.

Mr Sadr has offered a conditional truce to end a standoff with US troops in Najaf, but he was defiant over the situation in Karbala which has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the last two days.
"I appeal to the fighters in Karbala to stand together so as none of our holy sites and cities are defiled," Mr Sadr said in a press conference at Najaf's Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines.

He did not say whether two days of talks with Shia leaders were nearing a deal to end his uprising, but he praised the efforts while accusing the US of trying to sow discord.

"If the religious authorities issue an edict to disband the Mehdi Army we will disband it," he said. "If not, it will remain to defend this country and its sanctity."

Might we expect an edict from the fathers of the negotiators? Lord I hope so. We do sorely need some good news on the Iraq front. We'll see.

On a side note, are we supposed to refer to him as "radical cleric" or "rebel cleric?" Just want to be sure we're all drinking the same kool-aid.

New Blogger, New Look

After hearing (and seeing) that the site was appearing in a variety of fashions, depending on browser and OS (screwing with layout, text size, and line breaks), I decided to go with a slightly tweaked version of one of the new Blogger templates. How you like?

Private England

She is, we should not forget, trying to save her own skin here, but what she had to say to a reporter seems to confirm what all of the experts have been positing; that is, the abuses did not arise fully loaded from the "6 morons" own perogative, but rather trickled down from above. From today's NY Times:

Guard Featured in Abuse Photos Says She Was Following Orders

By KIRK JOHNSON

DENVER, May 11 - Pfc. Lynndie R. England, a prison guard who has been prominent in photographs that led to an outcry over treatment of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, said in a television interview broadcast Tuesday night that she acted on instructions from superior officers.

" 'That's a good tactic, keep it up,' " Private England, who is 21 years old, quoting commanding officers that she did not name as saying.

Asked about a photograph in which Private England was shown holding a leash attached to a chained and collared prisoner, she said the pose and the picture had been a result of direct orders.

"I was instructed by persons in higher ranks to stand there and hold this leash," she said in the interview, on KCNC-TV in Denver.

Ms. England, who is shown smiling and pointing to naked prisoners in some of photographs, said in the interview that she and the other soldiers in the pictures sometimes felt "kind of weird" about what they were asked to do. But she insisted that people in the "higher chain of command," knew all about it.

She was specifically told, she said of one photograph, to "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile."

"To us, we were doing our jobs, which meant doing what we were told," she said at another point.

****

Asked if there were worse things that went on with prisoners at Abu Ghraib than the things shown in the photographs, Private England said yes. But then on the advice of her lawyers, she declined to say more.

She said her superiors had also wanted to keep the scandal within the military, "and not go public." There was an effort, she said, "to keep it hush-hush."

Mr. Maass described Ms. England as calm and confident during the hourlong interview, and in the portions that were broadcast on Tuesday, she showed little remorse.

"We didn't feel like we were doing things we weren't supposed to do," she said.....

Shades of Nuremberg.

Violence Brings One Thing

...more and more of the same. This is horrific, but merely a harbinger, I fear, of much worse to come:

Video Seems to Show Beheading of American

Tuesday May 11, 2004 6:16 PM

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed a group affiliated with al-Qaida beheading an American contractor in Iraq, saying the death was revenge for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform - who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

``My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan,'' the man said on the video. ``I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia.''

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting ``Allahu Akbar!'' - ``God is great.'' They then held the head out before the camera.

``For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused,'' one of the men read from a statement.

``So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way.''

The video bore the title ``Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American.'' It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi - a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden - was shown in the video, or was claiming responsibility for ordering the execution.

The Web site on which the video was posted is known as a clearing house for al-Qaida and Islamic extremist groups' statements and tapes.

How to Manufacture 'Balance'

oy.

Wisconsin Daily Asks Readers to Send Pro-Bush Letters

NEW YORK According to polls, President Bush's popularity has been dwindling since the Iraq war heated up again last month, but has it really come to this? A Wisconsin daily newspaper, in a novel twist, has resorted to asking readers to send in pro-Bush letters to the editor to balance out the many critical of the President.

In a notice to its readers, The Post-Crescent of Appleton, Wis. (weekday circulation 54,193), observed that with the presidential race heating up, the editors have found themselves in a "quandary." They feel their Views page takes "the political and social temperature of the Valley." But now the question is: "How can we balance the perspectives and topics of our letters when many of our submissions have been coming only from one side?"

"We've been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him. We're not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today's increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance ...

"Since we depend upon you, our readers, to supply our letters, that goal can be difficult. We can't run letters that we don't have.

"If you would like to help us 'balance' things out, send us a letter, make a call or punch out an e-mail ... We'd love to hear from you."

In a letter responding to that editorial published Tuesday, Ellen Kunz of Neenah wrote: "Could it be that you are ignoring the current temperature of the Valley? If you are getting more letters critical of Mr. Bush, it is likely because the Valley is more critical of him. And for good reason ...

"If you are receiving so many letters, indicating an imbalance of opinions, it is because your readers feel they need to do your job for you. They are telling you that there isn't enough public scrutiny of this administration's policies and actions."

Also on Tuesday, Della Besaw of Appleton asked: "Whose bright idea was it to solicit reader support for Bush? Was it a P-C executive decision, or Gannett headquarters?"

Okay. That's about enough brazen and ridiculous bullshit posturing as a "newspaper."

On the one hand, here here for the good people of Appleton. On the other, yet another ounce of outrage. I have my own suspicions about Gannet news outlets; I wonder how many, if any, other Gannett papers were soliciting the same sort of "balance." More later.

Bastards

From today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK): First of all, I regret I wasn't here on Friday. I was unable to be here. But maybe it's better that I wasn't because as I watch this outrage that everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners I have to say and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment.

The idea that these prisoners, they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents, and many of them probably have American blood probably on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.

Again, the ICRC report states that somewhere between 70% and 90% of those in detention in Iraq were there "by mistake."

Naked in a Cage

From the WaPo's story on the ICRC report:

Ahmed Moeff Khatab, a 32-year-old plumber, said he was getting a shave in his local barbershop in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood on Nov. 11 when a group of soldiers in U.S. military uniforms entered carrying AK-47s. Red-and-white scarves covered their faces, he said.

"They pulled me from the shop and put me in a Nissan pickup," said Khatab, who said the men spoke English and accused him of being a member of former president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s paramilitary forces. "They threw me face down, then blindfolded me and handcuffed me."

He said he did not know where he was taken because the soldiers did not remove his blindfold. They started beating him with pipes, he said, starting on his legs and back, then moving to his head.

"I was bleeding from my mouth and my ears," he said. "I fainted. When I woke up I was in a dog's cage" set in a courtyard of a local military base.

Khatab said he was left naked in the cage for several days, receiving only scant food and water, until the soldiers hung him from a tree by his cuffed hands. "They told me they would bring my wife and hang her next to me," he said.

According to his release papers, Khatab was taken to Abu Ghraib, where he was held for four months before being released without an explanation. His two brothers are still in the prison, he said.

And the WaPo again, via Atrios, from last summer:

Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.

The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.

Lies, Lies, Lies

Atrios posts on the "fuzzy math" behind the good job numbers last month. Let's just say that Labor uses some creative estimation (to the tune of 270,000 jobs it's assuming were created in April.)

The president, last week:

This morning, we got some more good news about our economy. Last month, America added 288,000 new jobs. (Applause.) The economy has overcome a lot because the entrepreneurial spirit is strong. We've overcome a lot because of good policy. Since last August, we've added 1.1 million new jobs. People are finding work in this country. The tax relief we passed is working. (Applause.)

Enough already.

Pandora Has Left the Building

From today's LA Times. We should all remember that Sy Hersh brough this up immediately (dismissed on both camera and mic by the usual suspects). The fetishistic importance that's been laid upon the photos themselves is troubling...John McCain is pushing for a full release of everything.

I know I don't want to see them. If one reads between the lines (and we have to), you can see the stage being set, the American public, being braced for the release of some truly pornographic images. And, as the ICRC report shows, those in Abu Ghraib found themselves there by simple misfortune, the wrong place at the wrong time (which, as is becoming increasingly clear, means, in Iraq, during occupation):

Most 'Arrested by Mistake'

By Bob Drogin Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq (news - web sites) since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

Yet the report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment — including many new details of abusive techniques — that it said U.S. officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

ICRC monitors saw some improvements by early this year, but the continued abuses "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the report concluded.

...

The ICRC sent its report to the military police brigade commander in charge of Abu Ghraib after the October visit, and the commander responded Dec. 24, a senior Pentagon official said last week. But the Pentagon did not launch a formal investigation into abuses at the prison until a low-ranking U.S. soldier approached military investigators Jan. 13 and gave them a computer disc of photos.

The ICRC report also describes torture and other brutal practices by Iraqi police working in Baghdad under the U.S.-led occupation.

It cites cases in which suspects held by Iraqi police allegedly were beaten with cables, kicked in the testicles, burned with cigarettes and forced to sign confessions.

In June, a group of men arrested by Iraqi police "allegedly had water poured on their legs and had electrical shocks administered to them with stripped tips of electrical wires," the report notes.

One man's mother was brought in, "and the policeman threatened to mistreat her." Another detainee "was threatened with having his wife brought in and raped."

"Many persons deprived of their liberty drew parallels between police practices under the occupation with those of the former regime," the report noted.

This is a horrific development on so many levels. Not only have we seen what our own soldiers are cpable of (either on their own or, as is more likely, under orders), but we also see the sort of police force we've installed; one that bears striking similarities to the force they'd followed.

As so many have already pointed out, the Geneva Convention isn't there to protect the bad guys; it's what we depend on top protect our own in the hands of the enemy. God forbid we lose some of our folks to kidnappings now. As is the mindset of those working within the prison, there's no doubt the insurgency feels too, all gloves are off.

Knowing the level of importance honor (valid or otherwise) plays in Arab culture, I wonder if this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Is it so far fetched to see a few hundred thousand of the world's teeming Muslim millions, including actual states, actual armies, feel this is indeed the jihad they've been waiting for and march across the borders? How many fronts can one army cover? Iran is already threatening retaliation against Israel, should they attempt a strike oin Iranian nuclear facilities. Yes, we are the most powerful military force on the planet, but so indeed was Rome, and Babylon before. Myopia abounds.

The Wrong Morons

From the Army Times, an editorial. The print version doesn't seem to be hitting the street until this coming Monday, the 17th, but it's online now. So, you and I can read it, but if what's been said about KB&R cutting all "nonessential" internet access for soldiers in Iraq is accurate, the folks on the ground in Iraq cannot. Whether this is by chance or design I cannot say, but, them's the facts, ma'am.

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels

Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.

Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

— Military Times editorial, May 17 issue

Now, when taken with this piece by Thomas Ricks from Sunday's WaPo, and we have the beginnings of yet another Bush-powered breakdown, this one within the military. If this was not America, signs and portents would be pointing to an imminent coup:

Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy

U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq But Losing the War, Some Officers Say

Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.

...

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."

Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.

"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

...

Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

There's more, but you get the picture. While anger seethes within the Army, though, the Bush team is falling all over themselves trying to prop up Rumsfeld and crown him with laurel leaves. Fools. Josh Marshall made some very insightful comparisons between the Bush administration and junkies who can't accept they've already hit bottom, and so keep on dancing as fast as they can....from someone with deep firsthand knowledge of junkies and their rationalizations, I have to say it's a very apt analogy.

And an editorial note: I'll be spending some ugly time this morning with the February report on Iraqi prisoner abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and aim to do some writing on the matter. Stay tuned.

Josh Marshall on Point

As I'd mentioned, I've been having a hard time getting my head around the Abu Ghraib abuses, and the distasteful realization that there's going to be much, much more, most of it even more reprehensible than what we've already seen. I've turned inward, looking for a way to express what I'm feeling, but I'm not quite there yet. It's having a much wider ripple effect on my world view.

But, today Josh Marshall has a post that comes very close to summing up at least part of what I and so many others are feeling lately(emphasis added):

I haven't been able to read much news in the last thirty-six hours, or at least not as much as usual. So I'm still catching up with the details of today. But when I try to write about this, I have to confess that the words, metaphorically at least, get stuck in my throat.

For myself, it's not so much the horror of what we're seeing itself. Certainly, history is littered with far greater outrages. But how exactly did we find ourselves on the doling out end of this stuff? Morally, how did it happen? And in simply pragmatic terms, since this was a grand gambit for hearts and minds in a region awash in anti-Americanism and autocracy, how exactly did we get here? More than anything, a self-inflicted wound of this magnitude just leaves you speechless.

This is not America. I find myself saying it, out loud, in many different contexts, so often these past few years. What have these bastards done? What have they wrought, and how long and bloody and far reaching will the consequences be. Never mind the fact that, in my eyes, there is no acceptable or sufficient way for me to explain any of this to my children. Suffice to say, the television has not been tuned to the news in our house for some time now.

I've consciously unplugged, for my own good, but I've been wrestling with that as well...when you avert your eyes from horror, and though you could scream but do not, do you become complicit in the wreckage it rears?

At a Loss for Words

....and the truth is, that doesn't happen to me very often. I don't know if it's simply the "in your face"-ness of the photos from Abu Ghraib, or the deep-seated awareness that this is indeed the very tip of the iceberg, or the recurring realization that war dehumanizes all of those involved, on either side, by either side, but whatever it is, I haven't been able to touch any of this.

I'm sure I'll come back, but the ugliness has, for the moment, gotten byond me.

Jeez Louise

From today's NYT. The sad question....is anybody really suprised?

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

The kicker though, is this bit (emphasis added):

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."