The Italian got a bag over his head, at least.

Just talked to my dad and he pointed out that if we hadn't used Indian tactics against them, we would have lost.

Both Abu Ghraib and this incident are awful, reprehensible things. The difference, though, is that the Egyptians aren't claiming to represent my interests abroad, aren't using my tax money, and aren't wearing the colors of my country when they commit their atrocities.

And being a Baathist led around on a leash isn't an atrocity. Having your head cut off for being a contractor trying to help build the country of Iraq IS.

I'll just bet you contribute a lot to the tax base, too.

That's right, Aaron -- no big deal, since none of your tax dollars were used to murder one of your countrymen.

Obviously, this is a gross abuse of tax dollars.

How come a third world group can get better abuse for a lower budget than the good old US of A. What happened to the highly vaunted american quality programs. I think that someone is mismanaging our abuse program.

I'm writing my congressman. We demand better quality abuse!!

;)

…and we still subsidize Egypt?

Boy oh boy are these Jihadists dumb. If this gets big airplay the reaction of most people to further revelations from Abu Ghraib is going to be, "so what?"

And way to go Sen. Inhofe. I've said it before and I'll say it again: none of the denizens of Abu Ghraib. should have been tortured. But some of them should have been shot.

I'm for killing ALL Islamo-punks and their Democrat-communist sympathyzers.

Frankly, I think we can do it more cheaply.

Seems we should be dropping payloads of Fredrick's of Hollywood and studded leashes.

(Now they've done it, theyve gone and inflamed the WASP street.........)

Declan raises a good point, 2 billion of tax dollars are spent on egypt

Er, the story is datelined Egypt because that's where it was filed.

The atrocity occurred in Iraq.

yes, I know, I was annotating something he said.

Aaron, are we ever going to see the beheaders under indictment from their command authority the way the prison guards are under indictment from their command authority?

Nope, still no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. Distracting from the war on terror. Move along. Not the droids you're looking for...

So, who is more responsible for inciting this: The idiots who took the pictures at Abu Ghraib, or the idiots at CBS who released them to a bloodthirsty Islamic world? Of course, from what we've seen, the bloodthirsty Islamic world didn't need Abu Ghraib as an excuse.

May the Islamists all roast in hell.

Yes, I want to hear outrage over this. I want to hear Nelson Mandela say that it is a travesty. I want to hear the hypocritical catholic church say something about this, as if they didn't cover up 30 years of sexual abuse and still claim that they did nothing wrong. I want to know if the leaders of this group will apologize for what they did and put them on trial. But frankly, all we will hear is silent approval. Frankly, I wonder now if we shouldn't be giving the guards at the prison some medals.

Finally an answer to a question that was bothering me since 9-11, i.e. why there were people in the US who seemed not all that outraged about murder of 3000 American civilians (remember the "yes, buts…" and "root causes"). Here it is: Americans may have been brutally slaughtered, but it least it was not done on the US taxpayer dime!

I am happy that so many people are concerned about the use of our tax money. A day when GAAP standards will be applied to government budget cannot be very far, right?

70% to 90% of the people being held in Abu Ghraib were innocent and being held by mistake.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/International%20News/Mideast%20and%20N.%20Africa/Iraq%20conflict/Red%20Cross%20report.pdf

It appears that some number of detainees in Abu Ghraib were murdered (a touch worse than humiliation).

I'm confused by the argument you all are making: are you saying that the torture underwent by Abu Ghraib detainees wasn't that bad? Because it was pretty bad, as you'd be able to admit if this were a Democratic president. Are you saying sure, it was bad, but at least it wasn't beheading?

When we're in the same ballpark as al Qaida, I think we've lost the game.

As for the tax money strawman: look, guys, we expect Americans not to do these sorts of things. We're not supposed to be the bad guys. That's why there's so much outrage, that's why people are upset. Get a grip, and look what you're defending: the torture of innocent people.

This video is currently the lead story on CNN.

Reading the comments here, I get a bit confused about the motivations of the pro-war crowd. Are we trying to spread liberal democracy in the Mideast or are we out for "killing ALL Islamo-punks and their Democrat-communist sympathyzers."?

"But some of them should have been shot." I dunno, with or without trial?

Do American values only matter if we're dealing with other Americans?

God damn.

While I'm at it...

Look, both of the top liberal blogs (atrios and kos) have already posted about this and talked about their disgust. On this blog and on Reynolds, it's a piece of the story and a snarky comment aimed at the left.

Outrage? Give me a break.

Do American values only matter if we're dealing with other Americans?

Yes. That's why we've got Gitmo.

Welcome to the war on terror.

70-90% of the people held in the prison were innocent? Fat chance. Many even bragged about blowing up humvees or shooting at Americans. And I don't see how the Red Cross could make that statement, anyway, what do they know?

And, while what went on at the prison was bad, it wasn't much worse than prisons in America, if it was even worse. Not that this justifies it, but it shows how the outrage is a bit over the top.

And sure, Americans are expected to be better than this. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BEING TRIED!!! To blow it out of proportion and say that Rumsfeld should resign or that we've lost the war or to cover it 24/7 is rediculous.

And Harry, sure, it's on CNN. But you won't see the left getting riled up about it the way they flipped out about the prison abuse scandal.

As far as motivations, most people think that we should spread liberal democracy to the middle east. A few are so fed up with the whole region that they think we should pave it. And if this keeps up, I might join the latter group.

I happen to hold our military to a higer standard than Islamoterrorists. This event and the prison shit are intolerable. That said this line of reasoning is moral relativism at its worst.

A smart guy like steve should become a criminal defense attorney. I can see it now; "my client did kill thirty people but Hitler was responisble for the deaths of millions."

It's time to give the islamic terrorist pukes something to cry about.

Ryan -- do you think we put the Nazis up for civilian trial before we held them in WWII? Get a grip, we're in a war.

Harry, jury's still out, it's very, very early in the war.

Uh - I think the snarky comments are directed at the people who took such pleasure in the Abu G scandal. This at least serves as a reminder who exactly we are fighting.

What always gets me about these videos and similiar picture is that the "brave" terrorists always have their faces covered. If they are so proud of what they are doing they should let the world see who they are.

GC,

What percentage of people in the WTC were guilty? What was the guy who was beheaded guilty of? Daniel Pearl crime was being jewish, is that enough for you?

Most Americans did not do such things, and the few that did are being held accountable by an outraged citizenry. The left is begging for mercy by blaming the leadership, and the right is begging for mercy by pointing to atrocities of the enemy. The MPs need to be tried, and some should be held accountable for violations of military codes (I do think some may be guilty by association).

I believe Mr. Green's point is that while the abuse story will likely continue weeks (as the dicussion continues on how long to drip release the pictures), the story of the beheading will come and go. And isn't interesting that Americans couldn't handle constant viewing of the WTC, or those leaping to their death, but sexual abuse acts are perfect for daytime/primetime!

" 'But some of them should have been shot.' I dunno, with or without trial?"

With a trial. But not some Johnnie Cochran three-ring circus. Something more along the lines of: "you have been found guilty under UCMJ Section XXX of waging unlawful war against the United States. The sentence is death. Master Sergeant, carry out the sentence." "Very good Sir." BANG.

And that's extending them considerably more legal protection than they're entitled to under the Laws of War. I want our enemies dead. I don't want all Muslims dead (although irresolution in the prosecution of this war makes that outcome vastly more likely).

Boy oh boy are these Jihadists dumb. If this gets big airplay the reaction of most people to further revelations from Abu Ghraib is going to be, "so what?"

Yup.

The Abu Ghraib story isn't over... but it has been put in it's proper perspective.

"I believe Mr. Green's point is that while the abuse story will likely continue weeks (as the dicussion continues on how long to drip release the pictures), the story of the beheading will come and go."

Yes, that is what should happen. We know Al queda is awful that's why this will be a big story for a few days and die. Our military personel, aren't expected to rape and humliate prisoners, its as simple as that.

Stephen, cptn joe, and Katherine, you obviously missed my point. My fellow countrymen are murdered every by thugs and criminals such as these. For this fact I am both saddened and angered, but since they are not the actions of me or people who represent me, I bear no responsibility for those deaths.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib (including murder, rape, and methodic humiliation), on the other hand, were committed by people who represent me and my country who are paid by the same. I am deeply ashamed of them and of myself because I am responsible for them, as are you. There are few things that make me angrier than when I break principles to perform an action that is shameful. One of those things is when someone claiming to represent me breaks principles to perform an action that is shameful.

This is called self-examination and moral rectitude. It's how virtuous people live. It is completely different from the moral equivalency that many of the commenters in the thread dig into to justify the sins of themselves and their countrymen.

And Phil Fraering, no I don't think that they will be brought to justice. This is unfortunate, but not unique. It also does not justify moral equivalence.

STOP DOCTORING QUOTES

“70% to 90% of the people being held in Abu Ghraib were innocent and being held by mistake.”

The full quote is:
From paragraph 7
"Certain CF military intelligence officers told the IRC that in their estimate 70% to 90% of the person deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake"

Later
From Paragraph 24
"arrests were followed by temporary internment at battle group level or at initial interrogation facilities managed by military intelligence”

From paragraph 29
“They were accused of attacks against the CF or determined to have “intelligence value”. They could be there a few days or several weeks until their interrogation was complete. Several people were there for three to four weeks”

A later section indicates that it was “high value” detainees that ended up in Abu Ghraib. It also describes the responses to “unrest” that lead to prisoner deaths.

What do I take from the real quotes? The IRC was able to find someone who estimated “arrests” at a high mistaken level. They do not provide any data on the numbers of people in Abu Ghraib and the per cent of those who were accused of some real crime. All arrests did not lead to imprisonment at Abu Ghraib. Some unknown number were interrogate and release but the IRC did not see fit to give information on this. Abu Ghraib was the place where they kept the worst of the lot.

Investigate and punish the guilty. Increase the monitoring and accountability. DON’T DOCTOR QUOTES to make it look like something it wasn’t.

Still waiting for the outrage of the Muslim world . . . .

As I said in an e-mail published by Instapundit after seeing the Danny Pearl killing on the Internet, we should use this video to freak out the Islamofascists. We should use computer graphics to have the late Mr. Berg's severed head taunt the al Qaeda pussies who killed him. Think "Re-Animator." No disrespect to the Berg family, but we should use this death to our advantage in Iraq and throughout the Arab/Muslim world.

Moreover, on the points made by Ryan, Aaron and GC, I think that the patience of the American people is wearing thin. A large number of people would love to unleash GWB and Dick Cheney and (especially) Rummy and the U.S. military on our enemies and let Allah sort out their charred corpses, but we are a practical people as well. We know that we must take casualties and still fight humanely. We know that we will help rebuild countries that we have invaded. We know that the Arab/Muslim world hates us both because and in spite of these traits. We also know that we are sick of the Arab League, CAIR, the UN, much of the EU, too many of our NATO and Middle Eastern "allies," many Democrats (especially Lard Ass Ted), the moonbat left of Indymedia and other sites, etc., REFLEXIVELY TAKING THE OTHER SIDE. All we ask is that America get a fair shake relative to the rest of the world when there is plenty of outrage to go around.

When Toad Kennedy (on the floor of the U.S. Senate) equates the administration of Abu Ghraib by the U.S. military to the administration of the prison by Saddam, all Americans should be outraged.

When the UN, under the auspices of Oil-for-Food, steals tens of millions and is complicit in the theft by Saddam and others of billions, the whole world should be outraged.

When almost all Arab and Muslim countries treat women like property, deny voting rights, harass and outlaw the free exercise of religion, treat their prisoners (including political prisoners) far worse than what has come to light about Abu Ghraib, etc., they have relatively little moral standing from which to criticize the U.S.

For the most part, Americans want to be left alone. Let's not forget who started this (whether in 1979 or 1983 or 1993 or 1996 or 1998 or 2000 or 2001) -- it was the Islamofascists, not us. Having picked a fight with us, they are in no position to whine about how we fight back.

Finally, Bob is right -- the more the Islamofascists pull this type of crap, the more Americans will be inclined to solve the chronic lack of available parking in the Middle East. (We'll even give Bechtel and Halliburton the paving contracts.)

I, for one, am completely outraged at those who would do such a heinous act like beheading another human being. Just like I was disgusted when I learned of the abuse and yes, torture that occured in Abu Ghraib.

Some of you, though, seem to think that if Americans do it, it's okay. It's not. It's wrong when Saddam Hussein gasses people, it's wrong when terrorists fly planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent people (who, I might remind you, were not all American), it's wrong to behead an innocent civilian, and it's wrong when Americans anally rape Iraqis with glowsticks.

It's sick that there is so much happening to be outraged about, I don't see why it's necessary to be partisan in our outrage.

There's huge outrage over this. Nick Berg's parents are accusing the Bush Administration of illegally detaining their son which made his capture more likely.

Our post is here. We think everyone can agree on one thing:

"Our heart-felt sympathies go out to Mr. Berg's family. We can't think of anything worse for any parent than watching your child tortured, brutalized or executed."

Stephen, cptn joe, and Katherine, you obviously missed my point.

Frankly, I think your point was so obvious that they had to be missing it on purpose because they had no response to it.

A reprehensible post by an individual that has proven himself a dolt today.

Where's the outrage? Where isn't it? Instead of taking the moment to erect yet another straw man to take on, why don't you offer some actual insight or commentary regarding the matter at hand?

So according to the right wingers here American values are reduced to "not quite as bad as the terrorists"...I dunno, I;ve always expected better from my neighbours to the south.

Unfortunately just as so many Americans equate all Arabs with terrorists too many Arabs will now equate all Westerners with the worst products of the Bush/Rumsfeld empire. Funny how the extremists on both sides don't realize they are looking in a mirror when they point at the other side.

"Superb job" there Rummy...what else can you fuck up?

So according to the right wingers here American values are reduced to "not quite as bad as the terrorists"...I dunno, I;ve always expected better from my neighbours to the south.

Unfortunately just as so many Americans equate all Arabs with terrorists too many Arabs will now equate all Westerners with the worst products of the Bush/Rumsfeld empire. Funny how the extremists on both sides don't realize they are looking in a mirror when they point at the other side.

"Superb job" there Rummy...what else can you fuck up?

So important I said it twice...

Right here: http://www.patridiots.com/000186.html

What a remarkable post. In fact, one of a couple that I've read today here that made me go, "What the hell?" Guess I picked the wrong day to start reading Vodkapundit.

"Where's the outrage" ?
"I guess the American wasn't naked." ?

Sheesh.

While we're asking, where was Rummy's outrage in the `80's when Saddam was actually gassing people?

Oh, that's right, he was too busy selling chemical weapons precursor....er, agricultural pesticides, to Saddam.

The fucking hypocrisy on the right is absolutely staggering. In the eighties I was called anti-American for suggesting that Reagan and Bush I were wrong to be aiding and abetting Saddam's corrupt, evil regime; now the morons are asking where my outrage is...

Idiot.

I'd have to say I agree 100% with III up there. Well said, but we won't hear a damn thing from any of the above. I suppose we are supposed to expect behavior such as this from the uncivilized world

"Oh, that's right, he was too busy selling chemical weapons precursor....er, agricultural pesticides, to Saddam."

So Hermit, you admit that we've found vast stocks of WMD? (Shloads of "pesticides" have been found at Iraqi military bases)

This is more like it. Two reprehensible, morally bankrupt gangs of thugs racing to the bottom of the barrel.

I've always thought a sick, suppressed US grunt would win, because, as the good movie says, "Charlie don't surf!"

Anyone who says where's the outrage five seconds after news hits has already decided what the answer is.

I'm sickened by the video, and I'm horrified by the posters on this site who are glorying in the hate. The monsters who did this are still out there, and need to be stopped.

Aaron, I was not engaging in "moral equivalence."

In fact, the "moral equivalence" arguments are starting to piss me off.

The guards in question at the prison have been under suspension since January, awaiting whether or not they're going to be court martialled. (Which, BTW, I think they should be).

But I don't think the incidents above make us morally inferior to those countries that are, _as a matter of policy_, executing dissidents... or committing genocide. Iran gave someone the death sentence for "defaming Islam" the same day they released an official statement deploring the abuses at the Abu Ghraib; Sudan, which is running two different ethnic cleansing campaigns _as a matter of policy_, is sitting on the Human Rights Commission of the UN, and saying "Abu Ghraib" is the reason we can't criticize them.

There were a lot of incidents from WW2 where Allied soldiers killed Axis POW's in violation of standing orders. Does that mean we should have quit partway through?

Generally, idioitc strawman arguments are at least marginally more credible if you wait at least an hour or so until after the event is widely reported to delcare that there's no "outrage."

But it gives away the show. You could care less about the reaction to the event; you're a partisan hack rationalizing the egregious moral relativism that you believe should be used to evaluate the American torture scandals.

Having dealt with POW's before (14 years ago...believe that?), I know what we NORMALLY do. I also know that every army in the field dehumanizes the enemy. It makes the work of war tolerable. Murder is traumatic, no matter how justified.

That being said, it is relatively inevitable that prisoners would have ben treated badly, especially by soldiers who have been exposed to enemy fire for an extended amount of time.....enemy fire from forces that kill innocent people with no conscience. Those enemies that are captured are killers, and are treated badly

Is the behavior intolerable by our soldiers? Sure is...and all the steps that the military and Administration are taking are proper. However, what happened today isn't a result of the Islamofascists being angry with us for the Prison situation. It's an excuse to murder an American, in cold blood, and blame it on something other than their own depravity.

They are base, inhuman killers. However, they understand that murdering someone in this manner will not garner any support in the Iraq of today, nor will it create sympathy in Pan-Arabia, without a cause. The cause has been created....the crap that those stupid soldiers did in that damned prison.

Is it a good reason? No, but it works for them.

I hope that this creates anger in the American Public.....we need that anger back. We had it for the year after 9-11, and we need it back. We need to be angry enough to go in there and murder the murderers.

And...I think we will.

"There were a lot of incidents from WW2 where Allied soldiers killed Axis POW's in violation of standing orders. Does that mean we should have quit partway through?"

Phil, outside of maintaining local defensive (and voluntary) militias, I don't even believe in maintaining a standing army, so what does that tell you?

I don't think Aaron's point was ignored, nor was it profound. American citizens are not "responsible" for criminal acts committed by American soldiers; nor are they "responsible" for criminal acts committed by other American citizens in the street every day.The ethos of America is supposed to be that each individual is responsible for himself; and if he commits a crime, he is tried, and the "I was following orders" defense is relegated to the scrapheap.What is obvious is what angers the writers to this post: that the crimes of the Americans will ALWAYS be given moral equiivalence in the press with the atrocities committed by our enemies;actually, they will be portrayed as immeasurably worse, ostensibly (lecture on our shortcomings always follows) because we are supposed to be so much better. Not in a war, we're not. In a war with people who don't give a damn about the Geneva Convention, there will be certain Americans who don't give a damn about it either.The difference is obviously that we prosecute our own people. Let us know when the trials on the other side commence.

tibor, jody, melissa,

you guys sound like you get your education on am radio and fox news. get a life you lazy lard ass hicks, and get an education, you guys are pathetic, came over to this blog from another one and it looks like a bunch of dead end wingnut moonshiners. see ya, don't bother to post a reply and strain your delicate mental faculties, go masturbate to Rush or O'Reily

Loosers, go get a job.

alandry, you ARE missing the point. An American citizen who commits murder is not the same thing as an agent of the American government who commits murder on behalf of the government.

And the reason we are held to such a high standard is because day in and day out our administration (and you sycophants who unquestionally lick their heels) continue to bray and crow about how morally, technologically, democratically, whatchamacatically superior we are to the rest of the world.

So which is it? Are we uberhumans with the first government that works for its citizens, rather than to enslave them (as all governments do), or are we just as dirty as the rest of the world, in which case why are we spreading a lie?

The beheading not only was an atrocity, it could have been prevented.

So the retaliation begins. As if they did not hate us enough to begin with, we have now given them solid proof that their claims against us are not altogether unfounded. We no longer claim the higher moral ground. Maybe we never did. Maybe it was always an illusion that we were better than 'them'. We are not.
I have seen my enemy and he is me.

gawdamman sez: I'm for killing ALL Islamo-punks and their Democrat-communist sympathyzers.

Right, right, big tough threats from back behind your keyboard. Halfwit. What are you going to do, type me to death? Come on down to Lutz, Florida, big tough keyboard warrior, and attempt to kill this Democrat in person.

and melissa sez: And being a Baathist led around on a leash isn't an atrocity.

All you frauds with your phony-ass cookie-cutter talking points, e.g. Limbaugh: "I'm talking about people having a good time, these people [CIA agents and MPs at Abu Ghraib], you ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off? This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time."

Go ahead, try to convince me that you didn't see this picture. Does that look like "fun"? Does that look like some kind of "fraternity initiaition" to you?

And think about it: for every beaten-to-death Abu Ghraib inmate whose corpse gets photographed and displayed around the world, how many more do you suppose got quietly buried in the dark?

All right, I'll express my outrage over the beheading of Nick Berg. It was an outrageous act, and I have no trouble being outraged by it.

Now, tell me -- to whom am I supposed to EXPRESS this outrage? Al Qaida? Does AQ really care what I think or say? Are they even listening to me?

My Arab-American friends and neighbors? In what way are THEY responsible for this? How would it help to express my outrage to them?

My government? I'm mad enough at them already, for setting up the conditions that got Nick Berg killed in the first place.

What percentage of people in the WTC were guilty?

Iraqis were not involved in 9-11.

Iraqis were not involved in 9-11.

Iraqis were not involved in 9-11.

Iraqis were not involved in 9-11.

...

Oh, wait... I forgot, they're brown people, that makes them all guilty, right?

Jody --

The article you link to is nothing but supposition and long-debunked misinformation. It was long ago confirmed that the 'pesticide' was in fact pesticide, and the 'nerve agent' symptoms the soldiers were reported to have suffered were in fact due to heatstroke.

That someone is trying to push this utter crap nearly a year after the fact is just sad.

I hate those disgusting murdering bastards.

There is still no justification for the abuse. Inhofe's remarks this morning were repellent. If this is going to be civilization vs. barbarism, we need to keep the civilization part of the bargain. If you think there's a chance in hell that Iraq will stabilize, there's also the pragmatic fact that no Iraqi on the ground is going to want to work with us if we continue to behave this way.

Turn the anger into a determination that we need to set a standard. It's not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.

Leland,
What percentage of people in the WTC were guilty? What was the guy who was beheaded guilty of? Daniel Pearl crime was being jewish, is that enough for you?

Holy crap, are you still hanging on to the Iraq-9/11 connection? Jeeziz H. F*ck, even your beloved Preznitt doesn't believe that load of hooey anymore:

educate yourself 1

educate yourself 2

educate yourself 3

Let's review, shall we? WTC victims: innocent. Iraqis falsely imprisoned: innocent. Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg: innocent, but clearly taking great risks.

Did I leave anyone out?

Aaron, your remark came out as callous moral equivalency, but if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

However, as angry and disgusted I am at these home grown criminal yo-yos, I am NOT responsible for their action. And neither are you. They are individuals. They are responsible. Worst crimes against humanity were committed in the name of group guilt and collective responsibility. Thank God, this is still not a rule of the land. Yet.

Downtown:
Going through the government education system, I learned that a sign of education was the ability to argue with facts instead of epithets. In your factless flame, are you asserting that we have NOT found large quantity of pesticides at Iraqi military sites?

I've cited a reference supporting my assertion and can provide more if desired. Would you care to support your implied assertion?

Side note:
While admittedly the WMD discussion is off topic, I felt (and still feel) it was an appropriate response to Hermit's off-topic hyperventilating about Rumsfeld.

Katherine, too bad the Iraqis obviously don't see it your way.

And neither do I. You gave your money and your vote to this nonsense. It's on your head as well as mine.

I think it might be time to write of anti-war Americans who are still anti-war after seeing the actual beheading of Nick Berg. I have a link of this on my blog. I am more convinced than ever we must exterminate not just these animals but their ideology of murder.

Is that a threat pRicky? You want a Stalin-style purge of those who don't agree with you? (My apologies if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to go to your pathetic blog.)

This anti-war American's got a SIG and knows how to use it.

Bring it on asshole.

Ricky Vandal: Are you aware that when you write "I am more convinced than ever we must exterminate not just these animals but their ideology of murder" you are expressing an ideology of murder all your own?

agrajag:
I interpret your position as "a pesticide is sometimes just a pesticide" (and may be in this case, though I have reasons to believe otherwise). This is indeed a logically consistent and defensible position.

However, when combined with Hermit's criticism of the US's sale of pesticides to Iraq in the 80's (which prompted my first comment), the logic falls apart.

Either pesticides are used as a CW precursor or they are not. By simple logic conservation, if a pesticide is a CW precursor in the 80's, then it is a CW precursor in the 00's.

Hermit's criticism of American hypocrisy is predicated on the assumption that pesticides can be used as CW precursors. I am merely pointing out that if we are logically consistent and we accept Hermit's criticism, then we must also accept the proposition that WMD (or at least their precursors) have been found in Iraq.

It just can't be both ways. (Not that Hermit has tried to have it both ways on this topic - to the best of my knowledge - I'm just pointing out a logical conclusion of his assertion.)

Seems to me that the media that has been so circumspect in showing the carnage caused by the extremists, including 'policing' themselves within 48 hours of the WTC/Pentagon/Penn. attacks; no video/audio of the smacking sound effects of bodies hitting the pavement; no video of 9/11 on 9/11/03. They have been 'oh so careful' not to incite the US, but no problem showing a few degenerates from an Iraqi prison performing acts of humiliation on Islamic criminal suspects. They can't wait to show all of us the 'sex parts' soon to be released. But the tearing up of the 4 contractors from Falluja? The beheading and subsequent shaking of the head of an American by one of the most extreme Islamicists in the area? Oh no, too graphic. They will incite and give excuse to the extremists, but mustn't upset the sensabilities of us dullard Americans.

Well, Aaron, I do not see it this way. Frankly, I do care less about winning hearts and minds of Islamofascist, than not being killed by them. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I am curious though how did you manage to infer my voting record. Mind rays, I guess.

Got tired of reading the thread, in case no one mentioned it; the innocent Iraqi in the prison were held in different wings. What was done was there was horrible, the kind of thing you'd expect in a civilian prison guards.

Doh, sorry for the typos. Preview.

What was done there was horrible, the kind of thing you'd expect in a civilian prison.

Downtown wrote:

"tibor, jody, melissa,

"you guys sound like you get your education on am radio and fox news. get a life you lazy lard ass hicks, and get an education, you guys are pathetic, came over to this blog from another one and it looks like a bunch of dead end wingnut moonshiners. see ya, don't bother to post a reply and strain your delicate mental faculties, go masturbate to Rush or O'Reily

"Loosers, go get a job."

Wow! That's an impressive amount of gibberish to cram into a mere 77 words (Yes, I can count, too!). After reading this comment, I went back and re-read my original post. Here it is (sorry for the double, double-dipping, Steve):

"Still waiting for the outrage of the Muslim world . . . .

"As I said in an e-mail published by Instapundit after seeing the Danny Pearl killing on the Internet, we should use this video to freak out the Islamofascists. We should use computer graphics to have the late Mr. Berg's severed head taunt the al Qaeda pussies who killed him. Think "Re-Animator." No disrespect to the Berg family, but we should use this death to our advantage in Iraq and throughout the Arab/Muslim world.

"Moreover, on the points made by Ryan, Aaron and GC, I think that the patience of the American people is wearing thin. A large number of people would love to unleash GWB and Dick Cheney and (especially) Rummy and the U.S. military on our enemies and let Allah sort out their charred corpses, but we are a practical people as well. We know that we must take casualties and still fight humanely. We know that we will help rebuild countries that we have invaded. We know that the Arab/Muslim world hates us both because and in spite of these traits. We also know that we are sick of the Arab League, CAIR, the UN, much of the EU, too many of our NATO and Middle Eastern "allies," many Democrats (especially Lard Ass Ted), the moonbat left of Indymedia and other sites, etc., REFLEXIVELY TAKING THE OTHER SIDE. All we ask is that America get a fair shake relative to the rest of the world when there is plenty of outrage to go around.

"When Toad Kennedy (on the floor of the U.S. Senate) equates the administration of Abu Ghraib by the U.S. military to the administration of the prison by Saddam, all Americans should be outraged.

"When the UN, under the auspices of Oil-for-Food, steals tens of millions and is complicit in the theft by Saddam and others of billions, the whole world should be outraged.

"When almost all Arab and Muslim countries treat women like property, deny voting rights, harass and outlaw the free exercise of religion, treat their prisoners (including political prisoners) far worse than what has come to light about Abu Ghraib, etc., they have relatively little moral standing from which to criticize the U.S.

"For the most part, Americans want to be left alone. Let's not forget who started this (whether in 1979 or 1983 or 1993 or 1996 or 1998 or 2000 or 2001) -- it was the Islamofascists, not us. Having picked a fight with us, they are in no position to whine about how we fight back.

"Finally, Bob is right -- the more the Islamofascists pull this type of crap, the more Americans will be inclined to solve the chronic lack of available parking in the Middle East. (We'll even give Bechtel and Halliburton the paving contracts.)"

Now, I admit that there was some sarcasm and silliness in my post -- I doubt that it would be effective to "re-animate" Nick Berg's severed head as a way of freaking out his killers. However, most of the rest of it seems pretty reasonable. At the heart of my comment is the notion that America should get as fair a hearing as many in the UN, the Arab/Muslim world, much of the American left, etc., give to everyone else. I know that it's not going to happen any time soon -- too many of these people want America to lose (notice the spelling of "lose," downtown).

While America is by no means perfect, it is better than any other country in that it stands for something and is willing to invest its blood and treasure in making the world a better place.

Now before all of you lefties lurking around Vodkapundit this evening blow a gasket, I will admit that America acts primarily in its own interests in the world (as it should). And I will even concede that America is often motivated to do good in the world by commercial or capitalist concerns (e.g., expanding global trade). But what's wrong with that? Even if our motives are not 99 and 44/100ths percent pure, we have done and still do more good for more people around the world than all of the other countries in the world combined. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact.

I've taken up too much time and space already, but I just want to add this: I am no hick, I live in NYC, I don't listen to Rush or O'Reilly, I have never seen (let alone tried or sold or produced) moonshine, I was educated in parochial schools for 12 years, attended a huge, very liberal college in NY, graduated from an extremely liberal state law school, I am not lazy, I did come to this site from another site (why this is a bad thing I don't understand), I have quite a good job at a large law firm and as a result of the long hours at said job, could afford to lose a few pounds.

On the other hand, I do confess to watching FoxNews at times, this response has not strained my mental faculties and I did masturbate once or twice while in college. However, I didn't really enjoy it, and I didn't ejaculate.

By the way with writing off anti-war activists I OBVIOUSLY mean, don't bother trying to persuade them of the goodness of war. Nothing more. But we were talking about the beheading of a fellow American, not about the silly paranoia of an anti-war fool.

The guy was a mercenary, right? From the U.S.A. Who voted for Bush. In a country where he had no right to be (didn't even our good guys arrest him at one point??) Look, the al Quaeda guys feel better, the Iraqis feel better, and it was a mercenary, not a soldier. Yes, it was brutal, but hey, war's war, right? As our fearless leader is wont to suggest, "Bring it on!"

Hey modsquad, according to his parents he was a small business owner trying to see if he could build communications equipment (antennas) in Iraq. He may have been a contractor, but that's not clear at the moment. BTW, you forgot to mention that the American left is happy that he's dead, too. Maybe that wasn't an accident . . .

Where's the outrage? Everywhere I look. Have you read any media coverage? Any of the blogs on the left?

But lets not forget to be outraged that the only reason he was still there was that he was detained without charge or reason, following the system we set up.

And lets not forget to be outraged that this act was done by followers of al Zarqawi, who Bush had several opportunities to take out in 2002, but chose not to.

But you're not really looking for outrage, are you? You're looking for fighting words, threats, violent actions. All the sorts of things which are just bound to make people less likely to continue the spiral of violence.

We may be bad, but we're not as bad as them. Is that the best we can do?

--"Loosers, go get a job."--

What's a "looser?"

I believe a "looser" is a member of the fair sex with dubious morals...

Usage: "Let's not go to the nunnery - they're tighters. We'll have better luck at the sorority - they're loosers."

Where's the outrage?

Try corrente, kos, atrios, pandagon or any of a number of other sites, you feeble hack.

You should consider turning off comments if you're going to leave yourself so exposed. But, a weak apologist is better than a strong one, I guess.

Where's the outrage over this story?

The outrage is everywhere.

Bush did not kill that sick f**k because he wanted an Al Q to be in Iraq so he could invade. Instead of actually hunting Al Q members, Mr. "tough on terror" has left it to Pakis and other foreign groups while he did his invasion thang.

This never should have happened. Al Q are vermin who should be hunted down. So when will we GODD**N GET AT IT ??

I guess I'm not nearly as enlightened as the Lefties in here (you know who you are). And you know what, I really don't care about those people in the prison who were humiliated. In fact, I think it's kind of funny.

The more I think about it, the more I am starting to believe that the ungrateful Iraqi "people" had what they derserved under Saddam.

We should have just sent Nukes flying on 9/12/01. We spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on them, why not use them if we have to. That would've solved many of the current problems we are having now. No US servicemen dead, no poor humiliated little thugs, and no question what happens when you "F" with the U.S.

That would have been something the twits would have understanded and respected.

Yeah, the left is burning down the house on this one...from Kos:

"Violence begets violence. This is nowhere close to being over. And assholes like Inhofe merely add fuel to the fire."

Yeah...gung-ho there. This is the strongest statement against the beheading he makes, and barely manages to wedge it in between his partisan attacks on Limbaush, Inhofe, and Bush.

"Oh, and remember that Bush could've taken out al Zarqawi in 2002, but didn't because it would've hurt his case for his Iraq invasion."

So it's all Bush's fault, eh Kos? Yeah, tons of outrage here guys. Looks like it's clear sailing in partisan waters on the left...

While I'm debunking rooster, I took a trip over to atrios...more of the same "outrage" by the left.

"It's horrible when people die and it's horrible when they die in particulary gruesome ways. The only actual al Qaeda in Iraq, the followers of al Zarqawi, have now made their presence felt."

Yes, I can tell he's really angered. So angry, that he barely finished the sentence before launching a round of completely fabricated attacks against Bush. Apparently he and only he knew the exact al-Qaeda presence in Iraq...

"As Max says, there's really no one to express "outrage" to. Perhaps I'll send al Zarqawi a really angry note. That'll sure show him."

Wow, what a profound point here. No one to express outrage to, huh? Nothing like a quick dash of sarcasm to fill the emotional void left by seeing one of your fellow Americans be slaughtered.

They don't give two craps about Berg...it's all the same message: GET BUSH.

The crap Kos and Atrios are peddling are ten times as disgusting as anything offered by Limbaugh or Inhofe. And people wonder why the liberal blogosphere remains a pathetic shadow of what the right has to offer...

Oh hell, let's go for the triple crown of lefty humiliation...I give you pandagon!

"I've read your post three times Stephen and all I see is a pathetic attempt to score a partisan point (though why you think anger over the abuses at Abu Ghraib is unwarranted is utterly incomprehensible to me), where's your outrage?

Some things should be so disgusting that decent people can't respond to them with partisan snark. That line should be drawn well before a public beheading."

Ironic that he debunks himself in the same post isn't it? Can't manage to express himself without some form of attack on the right (welcome to the Conspiracy, Mr. Green). Beheading is bad, but failing to express the proper liberal outrage rates far more column space.

Shame heaped upon shame on the left. Nothing can divert their attention from the task of opposing Bush, not even a gruesome death...sad and sick.

Im reading a lot of quotes that justify this moral relativism because "It was done by people who represent me, Im not responsible for what Islamists do".

What makes YOU so important that anyone should give a rats ass? What kind of selfish, ignorant statement is it that says sawing a mans head off isnt as bad has taking pictures of naked men because of who committed the crime? Because the ones taking the pictures represnt YOU, thats much worse than a horrendous murder.

Typical leftist rhetoric. Me, me, me. News flash; no one cares about you.

So Mike, it would seem that the only outrage acceptable to you is outrage that isn't bogged down with any of that irritating "rational analysis" stuff.

We should, I suppose, just be calling for the indiscriminate raining of nuclear weapons upon civilians with no regard for the consequences of our actions, nor for the causes of the actions of others.

Outrage tempered by sense and perspective is proper outrage; it is what comes from civilized, thinking people.

Outrage untempered by these things is simply rage, and it is what killed Nick Berg.

"Outrage tempered by sense and perspective is proper outrage; it is what comes from civilized, thinking people."

Exactly, so if we compare a video of a gruesome live beheading to some photographs of naked men, whats the proper perspective?

Maybe this is what you're looking for:

"But now we also know what Limbaugh was doing on those oxycontin-dazed nights: fumbling for his passwords, looking for those homoerotic websites. Live and learn."

Atrios proudly linking to an article on Limbaughs comments...oh so rational and thoughtful.

Show me the "rational analysis" put forth by the three stooges I quoted above and I'll be satisfied, Anthony. I found little aside from tired cliches and partisan attacks.

How you think that translates into me wanting to nuke the Middle East, I have no idea. I'll let you rethink that one.

Mick, the proper perspective, in my opinion, is to put these events in context. We shouldn't simply compare attrocities: one beheading = 10 naked prisoners? How does it work?

Our responsibility is not to sensationalize, but to try to deal with the facts. A beheading is obviously a terrible thing, in every way. But it's power to shock and horrify, and provoke unthinking, vengeful responses is exactly what the terrorists have in mind. They are trying to bring us down to their level, and if we truly believe in the values we promote, we won't follow them down that path.

And Mike M,

First, I apologize for implying that you would advocate nuking the Middle East; that was unfair. I meant it more in reference to others in this thread whose responses have been much more violent and hot-headed.

I don't want to get into picking apart people's posts. Atrios' statement about Rush looking at porn is obviously a joke and should be taken as such.

My feelings about Atrios, Pandagon, Kos, et al, are based on their overall level of analysis, which I usually find quite good. I think they keep decent perspective and context, most of the time. Obviously they are all very partisan, I doubt any of them would deny it for a second.

You quote three liberal bloggers expressing outrage over this act, but then dismiss their outrage. Why? Because you don't like what they said after they expressed outrage. Can their outrage over this gruesome murder only be valid if it is accompanied by support for your positions? They all expressed outrage. They are all obviously horrified by this act. They all then went on to express their political views -- some more caustically than others -- and put the event in context.

In the end, though, the outrage stands.

I'm sorry too, Dimitri. I'm very sorry. Alright! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are, Dimitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, alright? Alright.

What context would you suggest? The fact that the prisoners were captured during battles in which they were attempting to kill American troops and that Nick Berg was an innocent civilian looking for reconstruction work?

In that context, the beheading becomes even more atrocious, but I doubt thats what you were thinking. So please, put it in the proper context for me.

As for going down to their level, our response to the photos is completely appropriate and SUFFICIENT. A court marshall for those responsible for the photos is more than enough demonstration that we hold the high ground here. It may even be overkill.

First of all, you're assuming a lot that is not in evidence. That the prisoners were captured in battles during which they were attempting to kill U.S. troops has not been shown. As for Berg, I don't know and wouldn't pretend to know his motivation for entering a raging war zone. He had been detained by our own authorities on more than one occasion, though.

The context I'm trying to get at, though, is that the torturers at Abu Ghraib are Americans. We do not compare ourselves to terrorists. Terrorists are capable of the most unspeakable acts, as we've seen once again with this video. Is that the moral yardstick we're using? We're not as bad as them? Our outrage over the behavior at Abu Ghraib is greater because it represents us, it undermines us, and it threatens us.

My argument is simple: The terrorists are bad. Beheading Nick Berg was atrocious by any standard. BUT, that in no way diminishes the acts committed by our troops at Abu Ghraib. We are going in a very dangerous direction if we start to judge ourselves by these standards.

As for our response to the torture, I'll have to wait and see. For now, I do not agree that courts martial for those directly involved is sufficient. I think it's a good start. If this is a systemic problem and/or if orders for this kind of treatment came from higher up, those people should by all means be held responsible, more so, than the junior enlisted in the photographs.

Although Stephen can easily clear up his intent, the original post is a bit of a Rorschach test.

In "Where is the outrage over this story?" it is never stated from whom outrage was expected. We are free to pick anyone as insufficiently outraged. Like a Rorschach test, how we choose to interpret the question reflects our biases and beliefs.

The following are sane examples of who might be the object of "Where is the outrage over this story?"
the national press
the international press
the arab world
the opposing political party

(Insane examples include "the Stonecutters" and "the evil monkey in my closet.")

In our comments, we have chosen the last option (the political party, not the evil monkey). I think this is a sad commentary on our nation. When presented with an option for ascribing ill intent - externally or internally - we immediately chose the internal option.

When politics trumps patriotism, it is hard to believe that we are on a war footing as a nation.

you jerk--fs can go on and on about nuking the desert and killing all the islamofascists ad infinitum, but the bottom line is that a horrific atrocity like the televised murder of mr, berg is just one more signal to middle america that the united states is losing the war in iraq. go ahead, be as sanctimonious as you want, accuse thoughtful and patriotic liberals of being al-qaida sympathizers and engage in every other tactic you can dig out of the joe mccarthy playbook. the bottom line is that bush is losing iraq, and soon he will lose america. god bless and good night.

you jerk--fs can go on and on about nuking the desert and killing all the islamofascists ad infinitum, but the bottom line is that a horrific atrocity like the televised murder of mr, berg is just one more signal to middle america that the united states is losing the war in iraq. go ahead, be as sanctimonious as you want, accuse thoughtful and patriotic liberals of being al-qaida sympathizers and engage in every other tactic you can dig out of the joe mccarthy playbook. the bottom line is that bush is losing iraq, and soon he will lose america. god bless and good night.

"My argument is simple: The terrorists are bad. Beheading Nick Berg was atrocious by any standard. BUT, that in no way diminishes the acts committed by our troops at Abu Ghraib"

It doesnt diminish them, no, but it sure puts them in, uh.. perspective?

It seems that youre suggesting that the severity of the punishment should be based upon the nature of the perpetrator rather than the crime. If US soldiers commit a small crime, its worse than if a psychotic islamofu*k commits a really big one.

Dont get me wrong, I understand the need to demostrate to the world that we are honorable and will keep the moral high ground. But what much of the world and leftist Americans don't seem to either realize or care about, is that these dirty sonsabitches only understand one word: Strength. And in order to engage them we must speak in a language that they understand very well.

I think you're wrong. If they only understand strength, as you say, we would be well advised not to deal with them on their terms. What we need to do is get the world on our side, and stop putting more people on theirs. If we respond with indescriminate force, we create more enemies and the cycle continues.

If we show true compassion, true love of the ideals our country stands for, we will have the world on our side. Then people like al-Zarqawi will have no place to hide, they'll have no support, they'll wither and die.

People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood very well -- and decisively proved -- that responding to those who "only understand strength" with compassion can truly change the world. Responding with more violence, however, is a losing strategy.

"Nick Berg's parents are accusing the Bush Administration of illegally detaining their son which made his capture more likely."

One of course has very little to do with the other... what we don't hear talked about is Berg's support of the war, his father's opposition to it and Berg being a Jew. Oh no, this is all righteous outrage from the Bush-supporting regular folks and it's all Bush's fault for going to war in the first place.

My objection isn't that Kos and friends surrounded their outrage with partisan drivel, it's that there was so little of it in the first place. My quoting of the lefty blogs wasn't that selective. I quoted just about everything I could find that approached "outrage" concerning the beheading.

Don't take my word for it, go read their sites top to bottom. The closest Kos comes to denouncing it at all is "violence begets violence". The others devote no more than a sentence or two. Literally.

I don't care if they support my positions or not, but if these are the representatives of the left I'm highly unimpressed with their compassion for Berg and their reflection on the event. They barely care about Berg, it's all about attacking Bush. It's a disease that's eating out the hearts and minds of the left.

Go ahead, read the three lefty blogs I've quoted and post the statements you find that can refute me. This should be a gimme if what you said is accurate. I'll wait...

"Where's the outrage over this story?"

I don't know. On Earth maybe?

What planet are you living on, Steve?

It led every network news story.

What planet are you living on, Steve?

It's front page of every newspaper in the country.

What planet are you living on, Steve?

Let me put it another way: what the fuck are you talking about?

Turns out that the attempts to blame Bush are based on half the story.

"If they only understand strength, as you say, we would be well advised not to deal with them on their terms."

Why not? Please support this claim.

"What we need to do is get the world on our side, and stop putting more people on theirs."

How do we get the world on our side when most of them were on the take from the oil for food scam? They already supported the enemy from the start because they were lining their pockets with money that should have gone to sick and hungry children. And then they have the nerve to cop a patronizing, 'moral' stance against 'unlawful' agression. Dont make me puke. They sure as shit arent going to support us not no matter what we do. We ruined their tasty little scheme. Not to mention countries like spain who are willing to hand their election over to terrorists. Talk about spineless.

"If we respond with indescriminate force, we create more enemies and the cycle continues."

Who said indiscriminate? I certainly didnt so I dont know where youre coming up with this idea.

"If we show true compassion, true love of the ideals our country stands for, we will have the world on our side.

Sorry man, this is pure fanasy. The world does not give a flying f*ck about our ideals. The oil for food scam proved that. You give these people way to much credit in spite of the overwhelming evidence in front of you.

"Then people like al-Zarqawi will have no place to hide, they'll have no support, they'll wither and die."

Again, pure John Lennon, love bead, pot induced daze fantasy. These are the qualities that make those psychos over there want to kill us more. Men like that will recieve overwhelming support. The only thing that keeps these people in line fear, and we need to make them fear us more than their maniacal imams.

"People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood very well -- and decisively proved -- that responding to those who "only understand strength" with compassion can truly change the world. Responding with more violence, however, is a losing strategy."

Your comparison is way off base and does not apply in the least. Ghandi and King had completely different goalsand were dealing with completely different sets of people. First of wall, the werent in a war with their opponents. India was not at war with England and King was not at war with the US government. Second, they wre dealing with the leaders of Western democracies who at least shared the basic principals of Enlightenment thinking. They were not trying to enforce order after a war with people that still have a 1500 year old mind set as to how the world operates.

Where's the outrage from the Muslim World? Why do you care? Aren't you American, impervious to what the rest of the world thinks?

...idiot...The Muslim world is a little pre-occupied with poverty, totalitarianism and the obsessive meddling of the dumbest Imperial power in the history of the world to react all that strongly to one person being beheaded.

A Tree:

But the arab world wasn't so preoccupied when it came to the execution of Sheik Yassin, or the abuses at Abu Gharib. Did this preoccupation you describe just start in the last few days? Or is arab outrage selective as is being postulated?

Mike,

I disagree. They do denounce it. You differ with them on their analysis of its importance and what should be done in response. But they all denounce it. We can argue over whether their denouncements are strong enough, but that will go nowhere.

The point you're making is not whether they denounced Berg's murder -- it's clear that they did -- it's whether they denounced it to your liking.

I disagree that the passion for denouncing Bush eats at the hearts and minds of the left, in fact I feel that the tendency to support and defend him is the deficiency.

My personal passion for getting him as far away from the halls of power is based on the fact that I have seen a precipitous drop in the quality of life on the entire planet since he took office. His record is one of deception, arrogance and secrecy, not to mention ignoring the will of the people. I've watched as people on the right shift their positions to align with his, supporting positions they never would have before because they are Bush's positions.

In any case, it's clear that we don't agree, and we won't be convincing one another.

Take care.

Mick,

I'm sorry, but we profoundly disagree. I see no point is refuting your arguments, as they show a fundamentally different view of human nature and the nature of justice and civilization than mine. I don't expect to be able to change your mind any more than you can change mine.

The only point I will respond to is your assertion that the alleged scandal in the Oil for Food program somehow proves the motives of people all around the world. If this program was abused, it was by a few people, not the citizens of the countries who may have benefitted. And I thought wild conspiracy theories were supposed to be the domain of the left.

It's like saying that because of the Enron scandal, every American citizen can now be said to have no belief in fair economic practices.

"And I thought wild conspiracy theories were supposed to be the domain of the left."

Yes it is. That and the denial of reality in order to avoid being proven wrong. Thanks for the demonstration.

What reality have I denied?

The "reality" that unproved allegations concerning the Oil for Food program "prove" that the world doesn't give "a flying fuck about our ideals"? That reality?

Please.

Anthony,

If you're going to make Bush into your own personal Atlas and make him carry the weight of the world, no, nothing I say is going to matter to you.

If you believe that 9/11, the war on terror, and the recession were triggered by Florida turning red and nothing else...well...you're a hopeless partisan and continuing the debate has no point. Blindly pull the lever for Kerry regardless of what else happens and be happy. Won't bother me a bit.

I'll still proclaim victory over the lefty bloggers, however, as you still failed to produce any kind of evidence of their outrage over Berg...or at least any that doesn't blame or run on into a criticism of Bush. Saying "it's there" doesn't cut the mustard in this age of cut n paste and hyperlinks. Show me, make the argument. Or I win.

No Mike, you miss my point. I purposely refrain from cut and paste because it won't make a difference. As I said in my last post here, there was outrage, you just continue to qualify what constitutes acceptable outrage. If I post clips from those bloggers, you'll deem them unacceptable.

Your first points though, have nothing to do with anything I've said. I hold Bush repsonsible for his actions and his policies, which have had a profound effect on the world. He did not cause 9/11, of course, but you certainly can't be suggesting that his course of action after that date was the only choice.

I think I've demonstrated clearly here that I am neither a hopeless partisan or a blind voter. Calling me such is an insult to my intelligence and my integrity.

I have made my arguments. Simply because I haven't made them on your terms does not mean you win.

Stephen: it's admirable to apologize for being wrong. One actually gets points for it.

Do you still maintain there is no outrage about the murder of Nick Berg?

Speak up, please.

Just go for it.

Uh, I admire your debate tactics Anthony but how do you propose to defend someone else's argument without referencing them? I made my argument point by point with their own words.

I'm not a regular reader of lefty blogs so there's a good possibility I missed something. Make the argument and change my mind, make assumptions and claim futility and lose.

I'll apologize for calling you a blind partisan though. You can obviously see the difference between liberal and conservative leadership. If you want to go back to the kind that allows and offers no significant response to terrorism, that's your decision. Just don't expect me to like it.

O.K. I'm outraged! I'm absolutely sick. But what can I do about it? I mean our troops are already doing all they can to bring peace to Iraq. I wish there really was something we could do about the horrific fate of Nick Berg, but we're already doing all we can, right? How should we be responding?

Okay Mike, I'll bite:

Jesse of Pandagon: "I can't believe what happened to Nick Berg happened, and that people like this actually exist."
Atrios: "This is an outrage."
Kos: "I want to throw up."

How's that? Now I expect you'll do exactly what I said you'd do and point out other things they said -- things which in no way diminish their outrage and disgust at this brutal murder but simply analyze it from their perspective -- and declare their outrage insufficient.

Moving on..

How is it that liberal leadership "offers no significant response to terrorism"? We've seen mounting evidence, in fact, that the Clinton administration was obsessed with terrorism and successfully foiled several major plots while the Bush administration pretty much ignored it until after 9/11.

Not to mention the fact that their response to terrorism since 9/11 has caused more terrorism than ever. Nice job.

They had 3 specific chances to kill Abu Zarqawi, based on "airtight" intelligence from the CIA. They didn't act because they were obsessed with going to war with Iraq, a country with no particular association to Islamic terrorism. Zarqawi is responsible for over 700 deaths in Iraq since the war started, including Nick Berg's. Is that an effective response to terrorism?

Responding to terrorism is not a black and white issue, even if those are the only terms George Bush and many of his supporters seem to be able to understand. There are far more options than "all out military war" and "no significant response."

How about an effective response? That would be nice. How about being honest enough to realize when your strategy is failing miserably, and having the integrity to adjust your thinking when events prove you wrong, instead of pretending everything's just going super?

I mean, really, this is getting sad, not to mention terrifyingly dangerous. Every day I see another conservative pundit recanting. More and more people on your side are realizing that this is just too important, and too much of a disaster, for them to rest on party allegiances and failed ideologies anymore.

How many lives is it worth to us to avoid admitting our mistakes? What has happened to our values, to our integrity? Is this really the country you want America to be, one consumed with fear and distrust, greedy beyond measure, and unable to see past its own nose? One that holds the world to moral standards that it can't begin to live up to itself?

Personally, I think it's a damn tragedy and I'm ashamed of our behavior. It is a great strength, not a weakness, to be able to look at ourselves and see our mistakes. As a nation, we are sorely lacking in this regard of late.

Humility brings strength. Pride comes before the fall.

Anthony, you are right on target, and you express yourself exquisitely. All I am seeing, everywhere, is rage against the Berg killing, a heinous act that is being denounced by liberals and conservatives alike. For those who ask, rather stupidly, why there's more coverage of the Abu Ghraib abuse, there is a very simple answer that they don't seem willing to grasp: Berg was not killed by Americans or people under American leadership. We expect al qaeda thugs to act like animals; we don't expect the same from American soldiers representing America. What al qaeda did to Berg only reinforced what educated people already know about them. What the soldiers at Abu Ghrain did has shattered the image the US has strived so hard to portray, of Americans as liberators and role models. It's a news story of immense proportions and will dominate the news for months to come. Its implications are catastrophic.