Oh say can you see Osama yet?

From my mailbox today, in regard to the welcome demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq.

Antonia,

My  condolences.

But keep your chin up.  Hopefully, someone will step up to take Zarqawi's     place.

It's from somebody named R. Lara. Or so the email said.

I dunno. Personally, I still haven't gotten over mourning Uday and Qusay, whose killings three years ago were to have signaled the end of the war. Then there was the capture of their daddy Saddam, and how that was supposed to bring the end of the insurgency. And now, Zarqawi's number came up, for the nth time apparently -- at least according to this 2004 MSNBC report.

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it.  By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. 

And so Zarqawi went on, the apparent inspiration for countless vicious attacks against U.S. troops as well as Iraqi men, women and children -- anot to mention the spate of horrific beheadings that began with U.S. businessman Nick Berg.

Went on, that is, until he was eliminated. (Much celebration here.)

Funny thing is, Berg's father isn't jumping with joy over the news.

"I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."

And here, via the almighty Crooks and Liars, is Berg on CNN, as Soledad O'Brien struggles to get him to say something pro-war. It's a must-see. (Transcripts are here.)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: There's an alternate reading which would say at some point Iraqis will say the insurgency is not OK. That they'll, in fact, be inspired by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the sense of he was turned in, for example, we believe, by his own Iraqi, you know, number two, number three leadership in his ranks and that that's actually them saying, you know, we do not want this kind of violence in our country. And experts who we've spoken to this morning have said, this is sort of the critical moment where Iraqis need to figure out which direction the country's going to go. That would be an alternate reading to the scenario that you're pointing to.

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario because every time that news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the every day Iraqi people who try to hold out, to try to be peaceful people, lose it and join the -- what we call the insurgency, what I call the resistance against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy -- I mean we have, you know . . .

BERG: Democracy? Come on. You can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

(A majority of Americans seem to see it the same way, at least according to an AP-Ipsos poll published today.)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: There is a theory that as they try to form some kind of government that, in fact, it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss and that's the history of many countries, that that's just a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush, but both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror. I don't buy that.

Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son. Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda. Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability. Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year.

I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush be the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

And here's Bush looking king-like today after having run his victory lap.

I would like to believe that Zarqawi's death means that fewer innocent people will be killed, that war will soon be over , that the troops will be able to go home and that they will live happily ever after in Iraq, but, if recent history is any indication, this will only renew the terrorists' resolve.

And so, back to my keening and wailing.

UPPITY DATE: Wonkette has the best post of the day.

You know who the real winner is now that al-Zarqawi’s gone? The people of Iraq? No, they’re pretty much still screwed. It’s the editors of The Atlantic, who have a huge Zarqawi profile in their July/August issue, conveniently added to the website yesterday. Abu Musab al-Zarqari: Terrorist mastermind, total idiot.

UPPERMOST IN MY MIND DATE: Who collects the $25 million reward on Zarqawi's head?

UH-OH DATE: Here's Loretta Napoleoni, author of Insurgent Iraq: al-Zarqawi and the New Generation as well Terror Incorporated, talking to Amy Goodman (Robert Fisk) on Democracy Now about all of this.

I mean, killing al-Zarqawi is not going to solve the problem. In fact, to be honest, I think killing al-Zarqawi is turning this individual into a super martyr. Because, let's face it, it's the first leader of Al Qaeda who's actually died fighting, on the field, coalition forces. So tomorrow we'll see the proliferation of the al-Zarqawi brigades. People who want to vindicate the death of the master.

Those who think that – what Robert said is very true about Al Qaeda. In fact, I wouldn't talk so much about Al Qaeda, this so-called transnational organization which existed before 9/11. I would talk about Al Qaeda-ism, which is this new global anti-imperialist ideology , which has been embraced by the jihaddists, which has been created from the ashes of Al Qaeda, the transnational organization, through the fight in Iraq. In that, al-Zarqawi, a man we created out of nothing -- because let’s not forget that al-Zarqawi was presented to the world as the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on February 5, 2003, when in reality he wasn't [audio lost] Al Qaeda. So I think, you know, this man has embodied the icon of Al Qaedaism, and in death he will be even more powerful than in life.

Mandate this

The following is a heavily annotated and slightly edited version of an email I received from a CBC-TV watcher who is concerned about what is happening to the corporation's assets, which were bought and paid for with your tax dollars. The writer argues that taxpayers are being screwed.

Essentially what is happening is that CBC buildings in English CBC are being used for private schools, retail, outside companies and condominiums.

A slight exaggeration but technically true. Because there is so little in-house production, CBC capacity, especially in downtown Toronto, is now being leased to private business. This means that, when a CBC production is made or commissioned, outside facilities must be rented, at higher cost.

Taxpayers then pay for the rental of outside facilities so that "independent" producers (they are not independent of the taxpayer as they also get tax funds from CBC and CTF) can do productions. Many of these productions have had terrible ratings and yet this is the direction CBC wants to follow.

CBC-TV doesn't have a lot of choice, given its budgetary constraints. However, what is happening now is a radical shift in CBC's mandate, one that is taking place without public debate.

This is essentially changing English CBC into a real estate developer that uses taxpayers assets for real estate development and also collects taxpayers' funds.

True.

I would love to have the taxpayer buy me all these great facilities and prime real estate and then allow me to use them for rental property instead of what they were purchased for. Should I ask (Heritage Minister) Bev Oda for a billion or so that I too become a real estate developer with a broadcast license?

Now there's an idea.

Oh yeah if you think the taxpayer gets something back when numbers are used as far a savings or when we privatize a crown corporation, just think back to the return on shares that we personally got when our assets Air Canada or Petro Canada were sold. That's right: Even though we paid for these assets the taxpayer got a total direct checque for $0.00.

Did something go into the treasury? Any experts out there?

Whatever your love or hate relationship with CBC, is one thing, but we should care when taxpayer assets are being retained only for some taxpayers and not others. I suggest retain the assets and create programming people want to watch! That's why CBC gets tax funds! Don't say this can't be done because SRC (French CBC) is doing that very well within the same country with the same revenue stream as English CBC.

Not exactly. SRC still benefits from the language barrier, as well as a well-developed  star system that has taken generations to build. French-Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, take pride in their own. Most Canadian actors are invisible here.

That said, the writer makes an excellent point. Are Canadian taxpayers subsidizing a public broadcaster -- or a landlord?

MonkeySee, Monkey Do

As predicted -- and I wish I could find the post in which I called it -- Canada's conservative blogosphere is so in love with the Harper government, it can only ape their Chimp-loving  counterparts who pound the keyboards south of the border. That means they attack the media and, specifically, the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG) instead of the government. This salvo, from regular commenter Mark-Alan Whittle, arrived in my email today. I felt compelled to share some of his gloating.

... Harper must be enjoying this with mirthful glee, I know I would. Just like that single mothers kid at the variety store throwing a spittle laced rant because mom didn't move fast enough appeasing the little twerp. A slap up-side the head only made it worse. The parallels are self-evident, aren't they?

<SNIP>

Bring it on brother, Harper has the upper hand no matter what they (MSM) try to do from here on in, the die's been cast, so to speak. Only the arrogant elites running the press gallery will have themselves to blame in the end. To them I say, keep it up, there's still the other foot to shoot after it's removes from your collective mouths. Oh joy, oh bliss, everyday it's show-time again. LOL.

The current fuss over who gets to ask questions during the ''media availabilities" seems to be the focus of all the coverage of the coverage. Here's the latest on the war from the Hill Times:

This month, at a general meeting of the Press Gallery, national reporters unanimously adopted two motions on its relations with the PMO. The first resolution, according the draft minutes, said that "the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery deplores the Prime Ministers' Office's restriction of access, such as access to the third floor outside cabinet, and instructs the executive to take all steps possible to restore the gallery's traditional access in the spirit of transparent and accountable government." The second resolution said that the Press Gallery "will ask questions in the manner that we see fit and will not accept direction from the prime minister's office or anyone who is not a member of the press gallery." Both motions were intended to demonstrate a sign of solidarity within the Press Gallery.

More from the Hill Times, recapping what I blogged last week.

Frustration among reporters seemed to mount last week at a news conference with the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act. The announcement was originally scheduled to take place in the foyer outside the House of Commons, but after the Press Gallery planned to set up a system of lineups to determine who would ask questions, the news conference was moved to the small Commonwealth Room down the hall.

The Press Gallery quickly set up its system of lineups and microphones at the new location, with nearly 130 reporters in the room. When the news conference ended, however, Mr. Harper attempted to pass over the CBC's Julie Van Dusen, in the lineup, to take a question from Tim Naumetz, a reporter for CanWest News Service, who sat among the reporters. When reporters told the Prime Minister that a lineup had formed, he continued to ask Mr. Naumetz if he wanted to ask a question. Ms. Van Dusen continued to press Mr. Harper, to which he finally replied, irritated: "Go ahead, Julie. Ask your question."

Mr. Harper then ended the news conference, and some reporters mused that he cut it short because he was annoyed, but other reporters said that just before the news conference began, Mr. Harper's press aide said there would be time for two questions only.

Which brings us to CBC-TV's chief political correspondent Keith Boag, who is now the target of a right-wing spew by the usual suspects and their acolytes. They're calling for his head over his report on last week's The National about the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act. They're saying he made it about himself and the media and not the act. They say he's biased. They're posting the address of the CBC ombudsman and calling all to write in and accuse Boag of violating the broadcaster's journalistic policy. These reader comments are typical:

(1) It is simply wrong for Canada to have any state-sponsored media. It destroys any possibility of that media being able to support its role as a pillar of society. If the CBC is funded by the state, then clause 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to exclude the CBC.

(2) If he doesn't like his job, then he should quit. However, it would be best if Harper eliminated the CBC altogether, firing everyone, selling whatever can be moved for scrap, and destroying the buildings. The CBC no longer serves any rational purpose. They supported 9/11, denied the Holocaust and supported the Nazis (Valor and the Horror) and have made a mockery of the concept of a free media. Get rid of it now and forever.

Unfortunately, I contributed to to this attack on CBC by -- at first -- mistakenly validating what was originally posted by Big Bloviating Tory Stephen Taylor who started this assault. I regret that because Taylor's post was GROSSLY MISLEADING, UNFAIR AND BIASED.

That's because, among his many sins, he only posted video of the top and tail of Boag's report -- perhaps a minute of what was actually a four minute report to make his case against Boag. Taylor ''footnotes'' the video but not once does he say that it was heavily-edited -- indeed mutilated -- to indict Boag. And yet he damns Boag for editing the report?

What makes me truly sick is that these Blogging Whories, as McLelland calls them, all drawing from Taylor, then use my original post -- which, by the way, was based on watching a midnight rerun of The National that night -- to attack Boag.

My mistake was I did not view Taylor's chophouse video before posting.

But after I updated my post, corrected the record and included the full text of Boag's report (the original video is no longer online) -- not one of these biased, CBC-hating, ideologically-driven bloggers saw fit to do the same.

And they have the nerve to call Boag dishonest?

What's ironic is, if you read the comments on Taylor's (and the other bloggers') post, you'll see how many of his readers distrust the MSM and think he's the one delivering the straight goods.

BONUS BASH: The full text of Boag's script, obtained from CBC, is posted in the comments below. Compare it with the video on Taylor's site. Let's see if he and his simian posse continues this crusade without correcting their shoddy record on it.

And people wonder why I work such long hours?

Some readers think I am their TV ombudsman. They send me complaints about everything from cable service to listings magazines to simulcasting.

Yesterday I received an email from a woman upset that her older TV doesn't get CPAC which has been pushed up to Channel 68, way higher than when she first signed on for Rogers Cable a decade ago. I replied, telling her that she could always watch it through her VCR. She then wrote back to inform that she just got a new VCR and hadn't figured out how to use it yet. What should she do? I told her to find the program button and see how to set all the channels. Today she wrote again, to share that she had misread my email and thought I had told her CPAC was on Channel 64, which caused no end of frustration as it is a Rogers barker (promo) channel. Now she tells me that her TV carries 91 channels. But I think she means her VCR does. I expect to hear again from her shortly.

It's not all so tedious.

Yesterday, I actually enjoyed getting a copy of a complaint Toronto Rogers subscriber Doug Earl sent to the big guy. He gave me the okay to post it. But I had it to edit out parts of it because (1) I don't want Rogers to sue us and (2) I don't want Rogers to pull the plug on my brand new I am-so-in-love-with-it PVR.

1. On 8 March, I ordered the Movie Network. You started service that day, and began billing me as of that day.

2. On 3 April, I cancelled my Customer Choice Package of BBC World and the Documentary Channel. You cancelled service that day, but continued to bill me for the entire month of April.

3. When I called this morning to protest, your service representative told me that it is Rogers policy to continue to bill for services to the end of the current billing cycle regardless of when in that cycle the services are terminated.

4. In layman’s terms, this means that Rogers charges its customers for services not rendered.

5. (La-la-la...)

6. How do you justify this (nice day, think it will rain?) activity? It’s clearly not a paperwork issue, whereby it takes time for the cancellation order to make it through your system, because if it were, then the same would apply to new services begun. But those you start billing for immediately. Obviously, it’s Rogers simply taking advantage of a situation to rip off its subscribers, in the hopes that people won’t read their bills. My guess is that you don’t bother to justify this (La-la-la...). It’s so ingrained into your way of business; you don’t consider it anything to be justified. Kind of like breathing to you, I guess.

7. What a dishonest company.

8. I hate you.

9. Here’s another example of your perfidy. When you added the Movie Channel, you also added something called Movie Entertainment Magazine, at a monthly charge of $2.00 per month. I was not asked whether I wanted this service. I never buy crap like this. This is a case of Rogers covertly providing unwanted service, and charging for it. I’m sure there are many customers who aren’t aware they are paying this charge, and didn’t agree to it in the first place. ‘Caveat emptor’ is the slogan of a (so, whatcha doing for the long weekend?), Ted.

10. Because I read my bill, I found out about these bogus charges and had them reversed.

11. You didn’t put up a fight. More evidence that you will steal money from your customers when you can get away with it. If you are caught, you will quickly and quietly give the money back to prevent the customer’s angry response from becoming public and your con exposed.

12. You have clearly learned nothing from the negative billing scandal.

13. I bought the Movie Channel to see the Sopranos, not to do business with them.

14. Sadly, I am addicted to this series. When it’s finished, so will be my business with you.


Looking forward to seeing you rot in hell,

Doug Earl

Feel free to share your Rogers (Bell ExpressVu, Star Choice, etc.) horror stories below. Try not to libel anybody.

By the way, Dell is still evil. I continue to await my $500 box.

Stupor Troopers

Do CTV's Mike Duffy and Craig Oliver ever step outside the corridors of power?

That's what Trevor Haché, a member of the Ottawa peace and anti-racism group  NoWar-Paix, wants to know. He wrote today to complain about CTV's coverage of the Throne Speech - and, more specifically, the arrival of the Governor General on Parliament Hill where protesters with a huge banner were shouting "Troops out now!" You can see the relevant bit here (WMV).

As he writes:

First of all, the protesters who are heard on the segment yelling "Troops out now" (heard at about 9 minutes and 20 seconds in, then throughout the rest of the video) were, of course, referring to Canada's troops in Afghanistan. They were not, as Oliver and Duffy said (at about 10 minutes and 43 seconds in), protesters upset with China's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. The Falun Gong protesters (who were about 150 metres away from the cameras, conducted their protest in silence, since Falun Gong has to do with silent meditation).

Secondly, after completely ignoring the anti-war protesters (who the Canadian Press reported were holding a "billboard-sized banner" that said: Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan, Duffy and Oliver then went on about how great Canada's military history is and how unfortunate it is that Canada has never had a Prime Minister with military experience. And how in the United States, the military is a "unifying force".

What Canadians can take from this is clear: Stephen Harper has given the media its marching orders, you're to fall behind the troops and support our mission in Afghanistan. Anything less is unpatriotic. Critical analysis of just what it is Canada is doing in Afghanistan in the first place, is not allowed.

Even if it was an honest error - a sloppy producer, for example - somebody should have tipped them to it eventually so a correction could be made. Instead, they prattled on and on about the military, without ever once suggesting that not all Canadians feel our troops belong in Afghanistan.

Let's see if the CTV News with Lloyd Robertson gets it right later.