Black Dog

I said I'd come back to the similarities between what happened at Abu Gharabi and what's happening at Gitmo, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But Seymour Hersh did it for me. So here ya go. The new gulag.

You do realize that the abuse at Abu Gharabi went much further than a few humiliating photos and naked human pyramids, right? Taguba's report detailed systematic abuse of detainess (keep in mind as well that by the Army's own estimates indicate between 70 and 90 per cent of the detainess held at Abu Gharabi are completely innocent of any wrong doing) that included breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoritic acid liquid on detainees, pouring cold water on naked detainees, beating detainees with broomhandle and a chair, threatening them with rape, sodomizing a detainee with chemical lights and a broomstick, sicking military dogs on detainees, threatening detainees with charged pistols. There also indications of at least two and possibly more unreported deaths, including an instance where a prisoner was beaten, died, packed in ice, and smuggled out of the prison under the guise of receiving medical treatment and dumped somewhere. So, maybe they didn't go as far as sawing anyone's head off (yet), but the physical and mental scars left on these (predominately innocent) people will last a lifetime. Meh. Mark Steyn knows a thing or two about the abscence of reason and logic.

Pinning all the blame for the problems of the Arab and Muslim world on Islam (as though it were a singular, monolithic entity), while ignoring the broader, more tangible social, political and economic factors at work, is ridiculous.

Seeking and having the capability to do so are two very different things. Look back a ways to Scott Ritter's description of how Iraq's WMD program was operating. Unlike you rpicture of a hyper focussed, ultra efficient WMD machine that was poised to swing into action the instant sanctions were lifted and the pressure was off, we instead see a corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic regime where scientists took money from Saddam for WMD work that was never done, filed false information and basically, lied to stay alive and to lin etheir own pockets. First, there's no mention in Kay's report of Saddam posessing precursor material. There is a single mention of attempts to aquire some, but no evidence stating any such material exists. That's a big if, and certainly one that was beyond Saddam's grasp, given that most of his production and research and development facilities were destroyed in the 13 years since Gulf War 1 (a fact you continue to bypass, despite being confirmed by Ritter, Blix and even former WMD program head Hussein Kamal, who defected in 1995). In other words the desire was there-there's no doubt Iraq explored clandestine means of developing WMD-but the means to do so was not there. Kay's report is long on speculation and suggestiveness, but short on anything indicating Iraq would have the actual means to assemble a viable WMD program, especially since there was no indication UN sanctions would have been lifted any time in the near future. the sanctions would have outlived Hussein, were it not for the invasion. Some exerpts: This says nothing about CBW development or production or deployment, and proves nothing about whether the equipment was actually intended or designed for CBW purposes. There is no indication Iraq went any further. Of course, as I said before, any country, with time, access to production facilities and amterials, could whip up a CW program. there's no evidence to indicate Iraq had the means to do so. I could go on, but we have a general picture here of the situation. -Iraq's WMD production facilities and stock piles were destroyed after the 1991 war. (Ritter, Rolf Ekeus, Hussein Kamal) -Iraq maintained a minimum of documentation and some materials that could have been used to restart a WMD program, provided UN sanctions were lifted. (Kay) Your entire case hinges on what could generously be termed speculation and can be summe dup thusly: Iraq had the potential to become a threat at some unspecified point in the future provided sanctions were lifted and he had the opportunity to pursuse, unhindered and unobserved, WMD development which could then possibly be used to threaten to his neighbors and give Iraq an "unreasonable and dangerous influence" on the region and the whole world. Maybe. Foreign policy by Ouija board. Do you understand semantics? How about spin? Context?Do you not grasp that the statements we both cited may not have explicitly used the term "imminent threat", but were designed to create the impression thjat Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with? It's called disinformation. So you you have no problem with a government misleading its own people and using the threat of terrorism and the memory of 9-11 in order to force what would otherwise have been an immensely unpopular venture upon them? To this day, huge numbers of Americans still believe that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that WMD were found. That's the effect of the Bush administrations disinformation campaign. As for what I belived: I never believed in WMD. I certainly don't buy the democracy angle either. I've read the work of the PNAC policy hacks (which you seem to ignore) tio see through the B.S. Nowhere did I say he had permission. You completely made that up. Anyway, here's the transcript of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam immediately prior to the invasion of Kuwait. The link. Is your position really so weak that you have to continue to attribute statements to me that I never made in some attempt to paint me as a Hussein sympathizer instead of someone seeking put a historical context on a current situation? Iraq was mostly bankrupt as a result of its long and bloody war with Iran. More ifs and maybes based on guesses and speculation. What of the other instances I mentioned, where the U.S. could have use dpolitical and economic power to leverage democratic reforms within states allied to them? If democracy was really the goal, that would be the strategy that would have made the most sense and would certainly have been less costly. As it is, pretty much all the predictions made by the supporters of this war (that WMD would be found, that America would be met as liberators, that the Arab world would support the invasion) have been wrong.

You're missing a vital part of the equation, and that is who is behind the orders to "soften up" prisoners in the first place. So, we have a situation where senior intelligence officials (CIA, FBI, NSC and god knows who else) as well as private contractors (accountable to who?) are issuing orders to enilsted personnel. Now, it's possible some of the activities were not authorized by the interrogators in charge, but, then again, maybe they were. Where things get extra dicey is when you see that there is a consistent pattern between the goings-on at Abu Gharabi (which were well-known to everyday Iraqis and the Red Cross) and similar reports of alleged torture at Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.(Link) I've gotta jet, but will expand on this later.

There's no harm in looking at the past for clues as to how things will probably shake down. I have little faith that the hearings will expose any of the institutional elements that led to the torture and other acts in the prison. I expect some of the prominent players (particularily the GIs photographed) will be hung out to dry. Consider the example of the My Lai massacre: 500 civilians slaughtered by 150 U.S. troops. After an extensive coverup, 25 soldiers were eventually charged, six tried and only one convicted. Military justice is seldom about actual justice (particularily when it comes to correcting institutial flaws) and more about creating the perception that justice has been served. That goes for any military (as the Canadian coverup of the Somalia debacle shows).

No, I basically assum etaht humans (especially humans exposed to the threats and violence and general inhumanity inherent in armed conflict) are universally capable of incredibly heinous acts against their fellow man. When you couple that tendancy with a sense of self-righteousness (which both sides have in spades), you have a recipe for tragedy. Tell me, did the threat of court marshal deter the jaolers at Abu Gharabi? Did the possibility of facing a commission of inquiry give them pause as they savaged prisioners with attack dogs and beat others nearly to death? No. Either they were following orders, or believed (as Berg's murders do) that the justness of their cause forgives any of their crimes (victor's justice). Bottom line: there will be more crimes. To deny this is to deny the simple reality of war.

Your being fatuous, KK. You know as well as I do that the run up to the war was a massive, highly orchestrated PR campaign. You can review the record and see that the administration's carefully constructed messaging (a "grave and gathering" danger, a "unique and urgent" and "immediate" threat , a "distinct threat" to security and to the stability of the world) was intended to create the impression that America was in pressing danger from Saddam's WMD and action needed to be taken immediately. (Why Saddam was a greater danger now than at any time in the previous 12 years was never explained.) That Iraq's WMD "stockpile" was an immediate threat was the hook that sold the war. How many people, after all, would have supported this war if they believed Iraq was disarmed? Without an imminent threat, or the perception thereof, they would have had no case for war at this time. As for the future threat posed by Iraq, comparasons to past behaviour are worthless without the context in which they occurred. Saddam invaded Iran with the (at minimum) tacit approval of the U.S. government and much of the west, who saw Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against a regional Islamic revolution. The invasion of Kuwait was motivated primarily by economic concerns (Iraq's economy floundered following the costly Iran Iraq war, during which Kuwait actually supported Saddam's regime; Saddam wanted Kuwait to forgive Iraq's outstanding debt and to cease slant drilling of Iraqi oil reserves) and with the understanding that the U.S. would have no position on a regional dispute. So, while Iraq has a record of aggression, it was far from senseless. If anything, the atatcks against Iran and Kuwait were motivated by Hussein's concerns for self-preservation. To extrapolate from these regional conflicts to make the point that Hussein would launch a WMD strike against the U.S. or its allies (at which point the regimes destruction would be assured) ignores historical context and preexisting patterns of behavior. Quite simply, wars cannot be fought on an "if".

I'm not talking about pronouncements from officialdom, who will no doubt condemn Berg's murder as they condemned the abuse at Abu Gharabi (even as they seek to scapegoat individuals and cover the brass' asses at every turn). I'm talking about the very real policies on the ground, policies carried out by the business end of an M-16 or Abrams tank. We've heard bits and pieces about various atrocities committed by American and British troops. Expect things to get worse.

Just off the top of my head, there was Roamania's Ceausescu, who controlled a formidable network of security and intelligence organizations and still fell. Hussein's regime would have fallen. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to have a limited life span (as limited as those of their rulers). There were many signs (including the practices of Iraqi scientists who conducted bogus WMD "development" at the state's expense; they just took th emoney) that the regime was rotting from within. Saddam's regime would have collapsed sooner ratehr than later. This natural process could have been facilitated by western support of the 1991 uprising or of internal resistance groups. Do you believe everything you read? War and occupation ar eusually accompanie dby high-minded rhetoric to the effect that the war/occupation is for the people's own good, or for democracy, or for the security of the nation. Such claims are always best taken with a grain of salt, at least. I've heard the phrase "America is afraid to do what it takes to win" many times. What exactly does that mean?

To borrow your (flawed) analogy, Robinson confessed, returned the property and took responsibility. Israel, like Iraq, has lied, obstructed and flouted the law with respect to its (very real, very active) WMD program, yet it gets a free ride. Now, I'm not campaigning for a violent regime change in Israel (as much as I would love to see Sharon dragged, dizzy and disoriented from a spider hole of his own), but I'm asking that the universally accepted standards of international law be applied equally. The law is not selective, but sets universal standards of conduct. Giving individuals or nations "get out of jail free" cards renders the law irrelevant and damages any authority or credibility we have to speak to moral matters.

I wish I could agree with you, but I've been reading too much of littlegreenfootballs.com to actually think that cooler heads will prevail. On the contray, I fear there will be elements of American society and its leadership who will use Berg's death to justify the crimes in Abu Gharabi and call for more of the same. I can't wait to see what Ann Coulter will say about this... :barf:

So your outrage over non-compliance with UN resolutions and international law, as well as posession of illegal WMD, is strictly selective. Moral relativism noted.

Of course the response wil be predictable. "This is war" they will cry. Bombs wil fall, atrocity will be met with atrocity, and, in the end "these guys" and their ilk will win by dragging us down into the cesspool of the worst human behavior with them (which, for some, as the Abu Gharabi photos show, is a short trip). Interestingly enough, Berg was held by coalitioon authorities for a period prior to his capture. It seems he was released just in time to get murdered. Pa. family angry with American government over son's brutal death

Kay's report proves that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so. Kay's report paints apicture of Saddam as being a threat to aquire WMD after Iraq was free of sanctions. If you read it, it's hedged in sugestive language and speculation, but short on real proof of any ongoing efforts to rebuild the WMD program. Hence the shift from the pre-war "stockpiles" of WMD we heard the White House talk about to talk of "WMD related program materials". Just about any country, starting from scratch, could produce chemical weapons, given enough time and access to the materials. But as I indicated earlier, Iraq didn't have the facilities (chemical weapons of th etype Iraq was accused of posessing are highly unstable and require special production facilities and stabalizing agents) or the raw materials necessary for a viable chemical weapons program. There's nothing in Kay's report the contradicts my previous statement that Iraq would have had to start its WMD program from scratch. So again, we're back to the question of whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat, as suggested by Bush, Rumsfled, Powell, et al. By your own admission, the answer is "no". The simple soultion, given the conclusion of the Kay report, would have been to maintain sanctions (albeit a modified, more humanitarian, regime) and periodic inspections.

No it's not. It's a perfect illustration. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that no nation shall attack another except in self-defense. No qualifyier. The UNSC did not give the invasion its blessing, so it occurred outside teh UN's mandate and was illegal, no matter how selectively you choose to interpret prior resolutions. As an aside, I find it fascinating that right-wingers will often bring up Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions, but clam up when one points out that Israel has the single worst record of non-compliance of any nation. At that point the UN becomes "irrelevant". Basically you make an assumtion that all the U.S. motives are pure as the driven snow and work backwards. I look at the past behaviour of the U.S. and its current policies like its National Security Strategy, the primary goal of which is to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. Of course, even if I were to give the U.S. and the PNAC crowd the benefit of the doubt, I still do not believe that the methodologies used (unilateral invasion, etc.) are conducive to building democracies. As I've stated elsewhere, if the U.S. was truly interested iin bring democracy to the mid-East and the Arab world, they would have started small, with some place like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, places where the U.S. could have leveraged democratic reforms without the use of force. That's not evidence of a "rising tide", as most of those organizations have been around for ages (Hamas, for instance, was founded in the late '70s). You'll have to do better than that. History is overflowing with examples of worse tyrants than Saddam who have been consigned to the dustbin of history by thei rown people. That said, you're ducking the question, which isn't whether the Iraqi people are better of without Saddam, but whether or not military force is the best way to implement democracy. To borrow a historical analogy, how different would U.S history be if, instead of a homegrown revolution overthrew the British, France came and kicked Britain out. How happy would the revolutionaries be to replace one occupier with another? The point here is that democracy is not a gift that can be handed out to deserving brown people like candy. By definition, it must come from the struggle of the people.

I'd say a programme that destroyed 90-95 per cent of Iraq's weapons producing capabilities is pretty effective. And as for the idea that Saddam could just start new programmes once the inspections finished, well, that's easier said than done. It took Iraq many, many years to develop the weapons programs it had pre-1991, programs developed with support from western nations. To do it again, they would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would be detected. They'd have to do it right under our noses, undetected. Not too likely. You seem to have blacked out. I'll post it again, just for you. (hint: immediate means "right now") I don't know. Pride? Stupidity? Again: what stuff? David Kay's report: Once again: 687 states that its up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.” Period. Yes. Israel's nuclear capability is a threat to regional stability, especially if it were to fall into the wrong hands. That's why we have treaties liek the Non-Proliferation treaty: to stop the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons and prevent the possibility of nuclear conflict. In fact, Isral's nuclear status was a key impetus behind Iraq's aborted efforts to go nuclear.

So, since Iraq did not pose an immediate threat (despite statements from top U.S. officials to the effect that it did), the invasion was justified by the possibility that Iraq might become a threat at some point in the future. Unfortunately, the principale of preemptive war is not supporte dby international law, nor common sense. For instance, by that logic, India has every right to nuke Pakistan, since that nation demonstrates and immediate threat to India's security. Syria has every right to attack Israel, as Israeli officials have made public pronoucements calling for the execution of Hamas leaders in Damascus. the U.S. failed to make its case that Iraq was a "growing and grave" threat. The UNSC rejected the US resolution, so the U.S. invaded anyway. So far, ther eis nothing to show that Iraq posed any threat now, or had the capability to become a threat in the near future. You missed it. The key is self-determination. While we in the west have the luxury of forgetting about our cultures imperialist past, rest assured, non-westerners have not. Non-westerners have had to contend with the western interventionism for hundreds of years. Imperialist ventures has always dressed themselves in pretty rhetoric and good intentions. However, thiose outside the west see little difference between the "white man's burden" which brought "civilization" (and foreign rule) and today's talk of "bringing democracy" (with the implicit assumption being that the brown-skinned people of the world are too stupid or backwards to run their own affairs). First, what "rising tide" of "Islamo Facsism"? How many "Islamo fascist" have arisen in the Middle east? Iran, the only bona-fide revolutionary theocracy in the Mid East has been making slow and steady progress in the area of reforms, no bombs required. Elsewhere, where Islamic-flavoured regimes rule with an iron fist, they do so because of to extensive support from the west (Saudi Arabia and Egypt being two prime examples). Afghanistan is a unique situation, as that nation has lacked a strong central government of any sort for more than 20 years. The Taliban was not an organized political movement, but a loose confederacy of tribal factions, religious zealots, and ordinary Afghanis tired of the chaos of post-Soviet civil war and craving stability. That promise of political and economic stability is what allowed the Taliban to gather enough support for victory in the civil war. Indeed, much of the west supported the Taliban in its early rise to power, and western nations showed little recitence in striking deals with them in exchange for access to the Central Asian gas reserves. In any case democracy, true democracy, must grow and thrive within a society, not be imposed from without, particularly by a distrusted and arrogant superpower. It certainly seems that is the path we're already on. the U.S. had a chance to build bridges with the Arab world after 9-11, to change its ways for the better. Instead, it squandered whatever good will existed by unilaterally invading and occupying Iraq, supporting Israel and Arab dictatorships, and leading what the Arab world sees as a new crusade (certainly the Christian fundie element in the Bush administration has done little to correct that perception), which will inevitably spawn more terrorism and more extremism. The U.S. is like an abusive mate locked in a pattern of behavior cannot (or will not) resist.

Post facto weasel words. The run up to the war was characterized by the statements that Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S., which is why the war was immediately necessary. The focus shifted to "regime change" when it became apparent the WMD angles wasn't working. However, even if we were to accept your chosen rationale for war, the simple fact is that no state has the right to arbitrarily impose its will on other states. There's a word for that: imperialism. Anyway, the real reasons for "regime change" have been out there for a long time. The architects of this fiasco have not been shy about there vision for the Mid East. Origins of Regime Change in Iraq Nice to see some honesty for a change: They've already failed. By alienating friends and provoking foes, by blundering through the Iraqi reconstruction and by continuing to support the dictators who keep freedom from the grasp of the people of the Mid East, the U.S and it sallies have provided enough fuel to keep the hatred of the west burning for a long time.

Even Riitter was willing to concede Iraq was short of full compliance. However, the question is: does the accounted for portions of Iraq's weapons programs constitute as threat to the U.S. or Iraq's neighbours. THAT was the reaon for this war, not because the U.S. sudenly took an interest in human rights and freedom for Iraqi people. There it is: "an immediate threat." What agent are you talking about?Iraq manufactured three nerve agents: sarin, tabun, and VX. . Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo. Chemical weapons were produced in the Muthanna state establishment: a massive chemical weapons factory that was bombed during the 1991 Gulf war, and then weapons inspectors came and completed the task of eliminating the facility. That means Iraq lost its sarin and tabun manufacturing base. As for VX, Iraq did weaponize VX, but all of its research and development and production facilities were destroyed in 1996, which means that any new VX production would have to have occured right under the U.S.'s nose, while any stockpiles would have degraded by now. Anthrax even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless. So, even if Iraq lied to us and held on to anthrax it would be useless. Again: prohibited? yes. An immediate threat? Doubtful. See, the fact that you're still citing "evidence" that has been refuted shows your case is weak. What next? Yellowcake? No smoking gun. Resolution 678 was addressed to a particular situation at a particular time, and it authorized the states acting in coalition with Kuwait to take military action. The problem to which it was addressed was wrapped up with the ceasefire. Basically you're saying that any state that happened to be a member of that coalition ten years ago retains the right to use force against Iraq in perpetuity. Which strikes me as being more than a bit absurd. As for Resolution 687, you are interpreting it as being conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However a close reading of the text of the resolution makes clear that the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution; the resolution goes on to state that it is then up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.” This means any additional action against Iraq for violations of the cease fire agreement needed to be approved by the UNSC. No individual state retained the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to force compliance. Oh yes, poor, defenceless Israel. Why they only have the largest military in the region and the full backing of the world's only superpower. The need illegal nukes to survive, dammit! Hysterical pronouncements of Israel's impending destruction do little more than serve as justification and cover for that nations many crimes (including posession of illegal WMD). As for parralells between Israeli leadership and suicide bombers, the former may wear business suits instead of khafirs, but they are every bit as morally bankrupt and criminal as their Palestinian counterparts.

PART ONE KK, you keep mentioning that Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire. So far, you're the only one who has (it certainly was never mentioned by Bush, Rummy, Powell, Rice or any other Bushnicks in the run up to the war). I find it alittle curious that this detail seems to have slipped the top decision-makers' notice. Even if such was the case, that certainly was not the primary rationale for war. The UNSC rejected the joint US/UK/Spanish resolution which would have authorized military action against Iraq. Thus, the invasion was conducted without UN approval. So, trying to give the invasion legitimacy by bringing the UN into it, when that very body rejected military action, is just wrong. It's been a year. There's nothing there. What is this "prohibited material" that's been found, and does any of it constitute evidence of a "grave and gathering danger"? Much of the "evidence" used to determine the Iraq "threat" has since been discredited, as have many of the "WMD program-related activity" finds (remember the "bio-weapon" trailers?). There's always going to be an element of resonable doubt about Iraq's weapons capabilites. But we had the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq saying that 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated since 1998. He was ignored and smeared. Hans Blix, while grousing about the uncooperative Iraqis (keep in perspective too that Iraq had previously-and correctly- accused past weapons inspection teams of harbouring U.S. spies), has since concluded that Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons after 1991. In other words: the inspections worked. The same Kay who described Iraq's WMD threat as a "theory" that was "possible, but not likely" and who told the Senate that "we were almost all wrong" about WMD. The deception described by Kay related to Iraqi scientists who "realized they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money." Whatever was left of an effective weapons capability, Kay said, was largely subsumed into corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and surviving in a police state. Yet Israel is still allowed to keep its illegal nuke stockpile? I'm confused. Certainly Saddam was after a nuke and otehr WMD. However, he completely lacked the capability to build them. So why would he pretend to have them (or at least create the conditions whereby it was persumed he did have them)? Easy. Saddam long fancied himself as the future of Pan-Arab statehood. Posessing a nuke would put Iraq on par with Israel and give Saddam enormous prestige in the Arab world, while acting as a deterrent and a lever in negotiations. Whateve rteh motivation, the fact is, Saddam's nuclear program was a pipe dream, nothing more. Yeah, because demonstraters have the power to stop wars (we wished, but we're idealistic that way.) I don't believe Saddam (who by all accounts was getting increasingly irrational as war drew closer) actually expected the U.S. to invade. Ritter, Blix and Kay have all admitted no programs existed. When will it sink in for you? Saddam was never a threat, but a target weakened by war and 12 years of sanctions. As for the west's "gift" of democracy", everyone knows democracy doesn't come from the barrell of a gun. The Arab world know sthis and looks at western support of dictators like the house of Saud, Murabek and Mushareff and they're continued support of Israel's apartheid policies as evidence that the west doesn't care about freedom for the Arab people. Iraq was anothejr battle in the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab people is over. It's a war that's already been lost.

Economic Left/Right: -8.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10. Huh.

Notwithstanding the fact that the period of Saddanm's worst atrocities coincided with the period when he enjoyed extensive material and political support from the West, the problem with this line of logic is that Saddam Hussein was far from being the worst tyrant on the block. The west is nothing if not selective when it comes to its villains. Let's not forget General Suharto of Indonesia who was resposible for the deaths of millions in East Timor over a thirty year period where he ruled with the full support of the U.S and Canada. Then there is Uzbeckistan, one of America's favorite partners in the war on terror, which has been cited for torture, religious persecution and harassment of human rights advocates and opposition mmbers. I find it sad that defenders of the Iraq adventure seem uintroubled by what is a continuing pattern of selective support for tyrants and thugs by the west, and are capable of the most complex moral gymnastics in order to justify such behavior.

So you'd be happy with a publicly funded broadcast body that had a right-wing slant? Well, at least you're honest. Personally I find the claims of CBC's leftist bias to be waaaay overblown (usually-surprise!-by rabid right wingers). I find the CBC takes a stadid, centerist approach. They have a fairly conservative outlook on domestic affairs (particularily economic matters) and a slight leftward tilt on foreign affairs. In other words, the public broadcaster seems to reflect the ethos of the electorate, which is ppretty much what one would expect. Rex Murphy, though he's too verbose for most right wingers to understand.

John Clarke, an organiser with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), was detained at the American border by immigration officials on his way to a speaking engagement at Michigan State University. Arab-American Woman Collapses After Judge Asks if She's a Terrorist Six French journalists arrested and deported from the United States Cop takes 'midnight photos' of teacher's classroom Political dissent can bring federal agents to door Blacklist Grounds American Passengers 'Hitler' producer has been fired