harikari.com

Story from The Washington Independent:

Employees of the CIA-connected private security corporation Blackwater diverted hundreds of weapons, including more than 500 AK-47 assault rifles, from a U.S. weapons bunker in Afghanistan intended to equip Afghan policemen, according to an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee.  On at least one occasion, an individual claiming to work for the company evidently signed for a weapons shipment using the name of a “South Park” cartoon character.  And Blackwater has yet to return hundreds of the guns to the military.

…

According to the committee, at the behest of the company’s Afghanistan country manager, Ricky Chambers, Blackwater on at least two occasions acquired hundreds of rifles and pistols from a U.S. military facility near Kabul called 22 Bunkers by the military and Pol-e Charki by the Afghans.  Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of all U.S. military forces in the Middle East and South Asia, wrote to the committee to explain that “there is no current or past written policy, order, directive, or instruction that allows U.S. Military contractors or subcontractors in Afghanistan to use weapons stored at 22 Bunkers.”

On one of those occasions, in September 2008, Chief Warrant Officer Greg Sailer, who worked at 22 Bunkers and is a friend of a Blackwater officer working in Afghanistan, signed over more than 200 AK-47s to an individual identified as “Eric Cartman” or possibly “Carjman” from Blackwater’s Counter Narcotics Training Unit.  A Blackwater lawyer told committee staff that no one by those names has ever been employed by the company.  Eric Cartman is the name of an obnoxious character from Comedy Central’s popular “South Park” cartoon.

Blackwater personnel invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

via Attackerman.

Senator Harry Reid grew some balls today.  Big brass ones.  Here are some excerpts from his letter to Senator Mitch McConnell: 

Dear Leader McConnell:
 
Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate.  At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans…
 
Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public.  …

… 60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars.  The House passed a similar bill.  However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support.

…

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified.  There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation.  As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules?  I don’t think so.” 

…
 
As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.
 
Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process.  You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation.  In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.
 
Sincerely,
 
HARRY REID
United States Senator

P.S.  Can you hear them clanging?

Marc Thiessen is out doing talk shows to promote his book, Courting Disaster:  How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.  It’s a book about how if our country stops torturing its war prisoners, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!

Thiessen, who when asked by CNN’s Christine Amanpour if he’d submit himself to waterboarding, said:    ”No because it’s terribly unpleasant and I’m not a terrorist.  heh heh heh…”  (link)

Yes… “terribly unpleasant.”  More like “brutally excruciating” according to a review of recently released internal CIA documents describing the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques.  Read all about it in the “Waterboarding for Dummies” article by Mark Benjamin over on Salon.com.

Thiessen will appear on The Daily Show tonight.

Here’s an excerpt from a review of his most un-American book written by a former senior military Interrogator:

First, Thiessen promulgates a theory that Islamic extremists are uniquely deserving of torture because they are doctrinally obligated to resist cooperating, after which they may disclose information. Of course this isn’t unique to Islamic extremists.  The U.S. military’s own Code of Conduct and the resistance training given American soldiers impose the exact same requirements. Article V, pertaining to interrogations states:  I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability.

…

Thiessen also argues that we will never know what other information we would have gotten out of KSM had we not used torture and abuse. … Serious interrogators have little doubt that we would have gotten better information from KSM, and sooner, had the interrogations been conducted by professional interrogators using noncoercive techniques.

…

Thiessen never bothers to cite military doctrine in his research.  Had he read the Army Field Manual’s instructions, he would have to answer for the fact that it cautions: “Revelation of use of torture by US personnel will bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.  It may also place US and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk of abuse by their captors.” Torture makes Americans less safe, not more so.

…

Thiessen and the torture apologists mock every American soldier who has followed the rules of law and ethical warfare.  He insults every interrogator who has learned to elicit information without resorting to medieval abuses. The America that I know and signed up to defend does not stand exclusively for security.  It also stands for freedom, justice, and liberty.  It stands for universal rights afforded to every human being (even unlawful combatants or “detained persons”).  America, as Thiessen surely has written into many a presidential speech, is a beacon of light precisely because it represents the protection of basic human rights.  Yet, in Courting Disaster, Thiessen thoroughly villainizes those who defend individual rights against the state (such as members of the Center for Constitutional Rights).  Thiessen’s ideology represents exactly what we are fighting against in the battle with Islamic extremism—the regression of human rights and the sacrifice of individual protections to the state.

I am looking forward to watching Jon Stewart pick this guy apart.

Update:  Here’s Jon Stewart’s interview of Thiessen on The Daily Show. 

If you thought Thiessen was a total dick before seeing this, well you’ll think even worse of him after watcthing it.  He truly is about as un-American as one can get.  As for Jon, he gets hot in this interview and gets accused by Thiessen of not letting him say his piece.  Note to Thiessen:  You weren’t invited on the show to give a speech.  It’s SUPPOSED to be a discussion.  And furthermore, when you place yourself in front of someone who truly believes in freedom and the rule of law, and you go off on how Liz Cheney is right to call those in the Justice Dept that represented Guantanamo detainees “the Al Qaeda 7” and question their loyalty, AND  you come on to promote your book that defends the military’s use of torture, you have to expect to be involved in a heated conversation like this.  So be a man and deal with it.

I just got the news that Mark Linkous shot himself through the heart on Saturday. 

Wow…  Terribly sad news.  NYT article here.

I don’t know what else to say other than that you might want to go read the Phawker tribute to Mark Linkous if you want to know more.

And a very good NPR piece here.

Read more…

I’ve been listening to Sparklehorse lateley. You should too.  Here’s “Pig” from Good Morning Spider to get you going.

Here’s “Anenome” from the Brian Jonestown Massacre’s fourth album, Their Satanic Majesties’ Second Request.

And some Visqueen, because you know you love Rachel Flotard.

This is slide #31 from a PowerPoint presentation used at an RNC fundraising event in Florida.  The Obama caricature has been around for a while, and this is the first time I’ve seen Pelosi as Cruella de Ville, but Scooby Doo?  Harry Reid?  Really?

Politico reports:

The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by [Robert] Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.

…

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

“What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” it asks.

The answer: “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.

That’s probably because Republicans rarely even understand satire, so when they try producing it themselves, it turns out to be a failure – pretty much like everything else they do.  Although if obstructing progress counts as “doing something” they have turned pro in that regard.

Who will Pat Robertson blame for the earthquake that struck Chile last night? 

Will it be liberal judges?

Will it be homosexuals?

Will it be feminists?

Will it be evolutionists?

Will it be the United Nations?

Will it be Voodoo Devil Dealmakers?

Will it be the abortionists?

And if a big tsunami strikes the beaches of Hawaii and causes death and destruction, will he blame Victoria’s Secret or Sports Illustrated?

Somebody’s got to take the blame, and it sure as Hell won’t be the nuts that follow the wacked out teachings of Reverend Pat.

via the Lapham’s Quarterly Roundtable blog post, “Turn the Other Cheek.”

The gentlemen boxers of the Young Men’s Christian Association would have been pleased to make the acquaintance of this new incarnation of faith-based fight clubs: a church cum mixed martial arts facility in Nashville called Xtreme Ministries, profiled in this week’s New York Times, which practices a combination of bare-knuckle fighting, wrestling, and kick-boxing and whose motto is “Where Feet, Fist and Faith Collide.”

Leonard Lane, left, fighting for Xtreme Ministries, a church that doubles as a martial arts academy. photo by Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

The Roundtable post connects this new rougher and tougher image of Jesus and his disciples to the Muscular Christianity movement that arrived in the U.S. around the turn of the 20th Century.  They thought that Christian leaders had pretty much morphed the image of Jesus into a woman during the previous century, and they wanted to turn him into a man again. 

One of the movement’s followers was Dr. R. warren Conant who wrote a book titled The Virility of Christ in which he describes his image of Jesus:

When Christ met a man, that man however dull knew instinctively that he stood in the presence of no ordinary person. There were the commanding pose and carriage, the piercing eye, the thoughtful brow; every movement, look and gesture speaking of reserve power, physical, mental, and moral. To an ordinary man the first impression would be overawing, to an extraordinary man a challenge, were it not for the kindly smile which immediately softened the expression; the strong, resonant voice vibrating with sympathy and good-fellowship; the words so fitly chosen for each one’s case.

That Christ’s voice was resonant and of great carrying power was a necessary consequence of his practice of preaching in the open air to audiences of five thousand and upward. And that proves another fact in regard to Christ’s physical appearance —big lung capacity and therefore a well developed torso.

There’s a website dedicated to this new incarnation of Muscular Christians called Anointed Fighter, and according to their “About Us” page:

Anointed Fighter (AF) recognizes that Mixed Martial Arts has become a cultural phenomenon as the fastest growing spectator sport in the world. AF desires to reach the MMA world and its culture with the message of salvation by providing hope, encouragement and truth in a relevant way while breaking down misconceptions of what it means to be a disciple of Christ.

AF envisions a time when every MMA enthusiast around the world will be impacted by its ministry through licensed merchandise, print publications, multimedia productions and short-term outreach events that will lead to long-term, self-sustaining discipleship programs.

And in the Anointed Fighter Handbook, you will find:

We are God’s anointed and together we will enjoy eternal life. Until then, we must step inside the cage of life and battle the enemy. Our enemy is a cunning creature. He knows how to punch and kick us off the path of righteousness. He attempts to choke out the light of the Lord in our lives.  We can tap out or we can fight him.

Jesus never tapped out man, and you can wear that message proudly if you buy this t-shirt:

So you see, contrary to that soft-focus image of a meek philosopher Jesus you probably have in your head…

…Jesus was not a wimp.  Jesus was a big, strong, loud, barrel-chested man…

 …and, if need be, he could kick your ass.

Repent or else!

Well it’s easy enough to pull the trigger on a sniper rifle, drop a bomb from an airplane, or even launch artillery into a house full of Iraqi insurgents, but it’s not so easy to live with what you see when you enter the house to survey the results and find out you’ve made a terrible mistake.  So writes Army lieutenant Shannon Meehan for The New York Times:

I thought we had struck enemy fighters, but I was wrong. A father, mother and their children had been huddled inside.

The feelings of disbelief that initially filled me quickly transformed into feelings of rage and self-loathing.  The following weeks, months and years would prove that my life was forever changed.

In fact, it’s been nearly three years, and I still cannot remove from my mind the image of that family gathered together in the final moments of their lives.  I can’t shake it.  It simply lingers.

While reading this column today, I was thinking about the conversation I had with my ten-year-old son during a battle scene in The Sand Pebbles.  The movie stars  Steve McQueen who plays Jake Holman, a Navy engineer assigned to a gunboat cruising China’s Yangtze River in 1926 as the Nationalist revolution led by Chiang Kai-shek  breaks out.  The battle scene takes place near the end of the film when the Navy boat must get past a blockade of junks set up by the Chinese revolutionaries.  After much shooting and hand-to-hand combat to clear the center junk, Holman uses an axe to the cut the thick ropes that string the boats together.  While he’s chopping at the ropes, a Chinese fighter sneaks up on him with a machete and raises it for the killing blow.  Holman catches a glimpse of  him approaching and moves just in time for the machete weilder to miss his mark.  The blade hits Holman’s helmet and glances away from him.  He then swings his axe head right into the gut of the Chinese man who doubles over and dies.  

Holman stands there with his axe hanging by his side staring at the dying man while his boat, just a few yards behind him, begins to advance past the blockade.  At that point, my son said, “What’s he doing?  Why is he just standing there?”  All I could say was something like, “Well, it’s not easy to kill a man.  It’s a terrible thing to take another man’s life.  That’s what he’s feeling, and it doesn’t feel good to him.”  As I’m saying this, Holman shake his head, shoulders his axe, and gets on board the gun boat.

Meehan wrote about that feeling in his column. 

Killing enemy combatants comes with its own emotional costs.  On the surface, we feel as soldiers that killing the enemy should not affect us — it is our job, after all.  But it is still killing, and on a subconscious level, it changes you.  You’ve killed.  You’ve taken life. What I found, though, is that you feel the shock and weight of it only when you kill an enemy for the first time, when you move from zero to one.  Once you’ve crossed that line, there is little difference in killing 10 or 20 or 30 more after that.

…The deaths that I caused also killed any regard I had for my own life.  I felt that I did not deserve something that I had taken from them. I fell into a downward spiral, doubting if I even deserved to be alive.  The value, or regard, I once had for my own life dissipated.

My son plays a series of computer war games that are mostly based on historical events.  In these games, he builds villages and farms to supply them with food and materials, and he must also build armies to protect them from enemies that want to take what he’s built.  Battles ensue, and one side or the other ultimately wins.  The games do teach a bit of history, but they doesn’t delve into the morality of war and allow for contemplation about the victims.

I’ll share this piece with him and hope that it makes him think a little about what might be going on in the minds of the tiny little warriors on his computer screen.

From Evil GOP Bastards

and you’ve got to love this one