Republicans on Capitol Hill were notably reluctant to back Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And NEWSWEEK has learned that U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives could be accused of war crimes. Among the possible charges: homicide involving deaths during interrogations. "The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: "It seems to have been planned."

... the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

Who might have taught them? Almost certainly it was their superiors up the line. Some of the images from Abu Ghraib, like those of naked prisoners terrified by attack dogs or humiliated before grinning female guards, actually portray "stress and duress" techniques officially approved at the highest levels of the government for use against terrorist suspects... a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods.

The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos.... What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war—designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals—evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.

Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

...

months after September 11, ... a small band of conservative lawyers in the Bush administration staked out a forward-leaning legal position. These lawyers argued that the attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had plunged the country into a new kind of war. It was a conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

These positions were laid out in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by the Department of Defense and ultimately by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, ...

The Bush administration's emerging approach was that America's enemies in this war were "unlawful" combatants without rights. One Justice Department memo, written for the CIA late in the fall of 2001, put an extremely narrow interpretation on the international anti-torture convention, allowing the agency to use a whole range of techniques—including sleep deprivation, the use of phobias and the deployment of "stress factors"—in interrogating Qaeda suspects. The only clear prohibition was "causing severe physical or mental pain"—a subjective judgment that allowed for "a whole range of things in between," said one former administration official familiar with the opinion. On Dec. 28, 2001, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel weighed in with another opinion, arguing that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to review the treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone—or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.



The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales said he feared "prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges" based on a 1996 U.S. law that bars "war crimes," which were defined to include "any grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. As to arguments that U.S. soldiers might suffer abuses themselves if Washington did not observe the conventions, Gonzales argued wishfully to Bush that "your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers."

...

What Bush seemed to have in mind was applying his broad doctrine of pre-emption to interrogations: to get information that could help stop terrorist acts before they could be carried out. This was justified by what is known in counterterror circles as the "ticking time bomb" theory—the idea that when faced with an imminent threat by a terrorist, almost any method is justified, even torture.

With the legal groundwork laid, Bush began to act.

First, he signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the president's directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness. Washington then negotiated novel "status of forces agreements" with foreign governments for the secret sites. These agreements gave immunity not merely to U.S. government personnel but also to private contractors. (Asked about the directive last week, a senior administration official said, "We cannot comment on purported intelligence activities.")

Second, the administration also began "rendering"—or delivering terror suspects to foreign governments for interrogation. Why? At a classified briefing for senators not long after 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether Washington was going to get governments known for their brutality to turn over Qaeda suspects to the United States. Congressional sources told NEWSWEEK that Tenet suggested it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive interrogation methods. By 2004, the United States was running a covert charter airline moving CIA prisoners from one secret facility to another, sources say. The reason? It was judged impolitic (and too traceable) to use the U.S. Air Force.

At first—in the autumn of 2001—the Pentagon was less inclined than the CIA to jump into the business of handling terror suspects. Rumsfeld himself was initially opposed to having detainees sent into DOD custody at Guantanamo, according to a DOD source intimately involved in the Gitmo issue. "I don't want to be jailer to the goddammed world," said Rumsfeld. But he was finally persuaded. Those sent to Gitmo would be hard-core Qaeda or other terrorists who might be liable for war-crimes prosecutions, and who would likely, if freed, "go back and hit us again," as the source put it.

In mid-January 2002 the first plane-load of prisoners landed at Gitmo's Camp X-Ray. Still, not everyone was getting the message that this was a new kind of war. The first commander of the MPs at Gitmo was a one-star from the Rhode Island National Guard, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who, a Defense source recalled, mainly "wanted to keep the prisoners happy." Baccus began giving copies of the Qur'an to detainees, and he organized a special meal schedule for Ramadan. "He was even handing out printed 'rights cards'," the Defense source recalled. The upshot was that the prisoners were soon telling the interrogators, "Go f—- yourself, I know my rights." Baccus was relieved in October 2002, and Rumsfeld gave military intelligence control of all aspects of the Gitmo camp, including the MPs.

Pentagon officials now insist that they flatly ruled out using some of the harsher interrogation techniques authorized for the CIA. That included one practice—reported last week by The New York Times—whereby a suspect is pushed underwater and made to think he will be drowned. While the CIA could do pretty much what it liked in its own secret centers, the Pentagon was bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Military officers were routinely trained to observe the Geneva Conventions. According to one source, both military and civilian officials at the Pentagon ultimately determined that such CIA techniques were "not something we believed the military should be involved in."

But in practical terms those distinctions began to matter less. The Pentagon's resistance to rougher techniques eroded month by month. In part this was because CIA interrogators were increasingly in the same room as their military-intelligence counterparts. But there was also a deliberate effort by top Pentagon officials to loosen the rules binding the military.

Toward the end of 2002, orders came down the political chain at DOD that the Geneva Conventions were to be reinterpreted to allow tougher methods of interrogation. "There was almost a revolt" by the service judge advocates general, or JAGs, the top military lawyers who had originally allied with Powell against the new rules, says a knowledgeable source. The JAGs, including the lawyers in the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, fought their civilian bosses for months—but finally lost. In April 2003, new and tougher interrogation techniques were approved. Covertly, though, the JAGs made a final effort. They went to see Scott Horton, a specialist in international human-rights law and a major player in the New York City Bar Association's human-rights work. The JAGs told Horton they could only talk obliquely about practices that were classified. But they said the U.S. military's 50-year history of observing the demands of the Geneva Conventions was now being overturned. "There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" about how the conventions should be interpreted and applied, they told Horton. And the prime movers in this effort, they told him, were DOD Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith and DOD general counsel William Haynes. There was, they warned, "a real risk of a disaster" for U.S. interests.

The approach at Gitmo soon reflected these changes. Under the leadership of an aggressive, self-assured major general named Geoffrey Miller, a new set of interrogation rules became doctrine. Ultimately what was developed at Gitmo was a "72-point matrix for stress and duress," which laid out types of coercion and the escalating levels at which they could be applied. These included the use of harsh heat or cold; —withholding food; hooding for days at a time; naked isolation in cold, dark cells for more than 30 days, and threatening (but not biting) by dogs. It also permitted limited use of "stress positions" designed to subject detainees to rising levels of pain.

While the interrogators at Gitmo were refining their techniques, by the summer of 2003 the "postwar" insurgency in Iraq was raging. And Rumsfeld was getting impatient about the poor quality of the intelligence coming out of there. He wanted to know: Where was Saddam? Where were the WMD? Most immediately: Why weren't U.S. troops catching or forestalling the gangs planting improvised explosive devices by the roads? Rumsfeld pointed out that Gitmo was producing good intel. So he directed Steve Cambone, his under secretary for intelligence, to send Gitmo commandant Miller to Iraq to improve what they were doing out there. Cambone in turn dispatched his deputy, Lt. Gen. William (Jerry) Boykin—later to gain notoriety for his harsh comments about Islam—down to Gitmo to talk with Miller and organize the trip. In Baghdad in September 2003, Miller delivered a blunt message to Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was then in charge of the 800th Military Police Brigade running Iraqi detentions. According to Karpinski, Miller told her that the prison would thenceforth be dedicated to gathering intel. (Miller says he simply recommended that detention and intelligence commands be integrated.) On Nov. 19, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units.

By the time Gitmo's techniques were exported to Abu Ghraib, the CIA was already fully involved. On a daily basis at Abu Ghraib, says Paul Wayne Bergrin, a lawyer for MP defendant Sgt. Javal Davis, the CIA and other intel officials "would interrogate, interview prisoners exhaustively, use the approved measures of food and sleep deprivation, solitary confinement with no light coming into cell 24 hours a day. Consequently, they set a poor example for young soldiers but it went even further than that."

Today there is no telling where the scandal will bottom out. But it is growing harder for top Pentagon officials, including Rumsfeld himself, to absolve themselves of all responsibility. Evidence is growing that the Pentagon has not been forthright on exactly when it was first warned of the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib. U.S. officials continued to say they didn't know until mid-January. But Red Cross officials had alerted the U.S. military command in Baghdad at the start of November. The Red Cross warned explicitly of MPs' conducting "acts of humiliation such as [detainees'] being made to stand naked... with women's underwear over the head, while being laughed at by guards, including female guards, and sometimes photographed in this position." Karpinski recounts that the military-intel officials there regarded this criticism as funny. She says: "The MI officers said, 'We warned the [commanding officer] about giving those detainees the Victoria's Secret catalog, but he wouldn't listen'." The Coalition commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and his Iraq command didn't begin an investigation until two months later, when it was clear the pictures were about to leak.

... Reporters who spent the first two-thirds of Mr. Bush's term looking for any crack between the tight-lipped members of the administration suddenly feel as if they have stepped into an amusement park, with different hawkers openly selling disparate policies, explanations and critiques....

Another theory is that while the president is thinking about his second term, many of those in his cabinet are thinking about getting out - Mr. Powell first among them. That changes every political calculation; many suspect that the secretary of state, among others, is thinking about his legacy, and wants to clear the ledgers before he leaves.

Mr. Powell himself alluded to the divisions in the administration last week, if only to dismiss them as business as usual. "The president has always welcomed different points of view from people in his administration who have strongly held different points of view,'' he said. "Most of the time, we are in agreement. When we are not in agreement, you guys sell newspapers. And people write books. And surprise, surprise, sometimes we are in disagreement.''

"Sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses"--including burning detainees with phosphoric liquid, brutal beatings and the sodomising of one detainee with a chemical light or a broom stick--date back to the previous October.

... Abu Ghraib contained within its walls last fall—as the war heated up and American soldiers, desperate for "actionable intelligence," spent many an autumn evening swooping down on Iraqi homes, kicking in doors, and carrying away hooded prisoners into the night—well over eight thousand Iraqis. Could it be that "between 70 percent and 90 percent" of them were "arrested by mistake"? And if so, which of the naked, twisted bodies that television viewers and news paper readers around the world have been gazing at these last weeks were among them? Perhaps the seven bodies piled up in that great coil, buttocks and genitals exposed to the camera? Or the bodies bound one against another on the cellblock floor? Or the body up against the bars, clenched before the teeth of barking police dogs?....

"We've now had fifteen of the highest-level officials involved in this entire operation, from the secretary of defense to the generals in command, and nobody knew that anything was amiss, no one approved anything amiss, nobody did anything amiss. We have a general acceptance of responsibility, but there's no one to blame, except for the people at the very bottom of one prison."

What is difficult is separating what we now know from what we have long known but have mostly refused to admit.

Though the events and disclosures of the last weeks have taken on the familiar clothing of a Washington scandal—complete with full-dress congressional hearings, daily leaks to reporters from victim and accused alike, and of course the garish, spectacular photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib— beyond that bright glare of revelation lies a dark area of unacknowledged clarity.

Behind the exotic brutality so painstakingly recorded in Abu Ghraib, and the multiple tangled plotlines that will be teased out in the coming weeks and months about responsibility, knowledge, and culpability, lies a simple truth, well known but not yet publicly admitted in Washington:

that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials of the United States, at various locations around the world, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantanamo in Cuba to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, have been torturing prisoners.

They did this, in the felicitous phrasing of General Taguba's report, in order to "exploit [them] for actionable intelligence" and they did it, insofar as this is possible, with the institutional approval of the United States government, complete with memoranda from the President's counsel and officially promulgated decisions, in the case of Afghanistan and Guantanamo, about the nonapplicability of the Geneva Conventions and, in the case of Iraq, about at least three different sets of interrogation policies, two of them modeled on earlier practice in Afghanistan and Cuba.[1]

"Tenenbaum has been careful not to become too closely identified with the national Democratic Party or with the presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry."

that 81 percent of Americans believe in heaven, up from 72 percent reported in 1997. The percentage of Americans who believe in hell is also up, from 56 percent in 1997 to 70 percent in this telephone survey of 519 adults.

Few Democratic officials in South Carolina or elsewhere are criticizing Tenenbaum's faint loyalty, however. They know that southern Democrats find it increasingly difficult to win statewide elections without distancing themselves from the party's more liberal policies and leaders.

They also know that this year's crucial battleground for control of the Senate is in Dixie, where Republicans are eager to grab five seats being vacated by Democrats. The Democrats' hopes, meanwhile, rest largely on moderate, independent contenders such as Tenenbaum -- along with Erskine B. Bowles in North Carolina and perhaps Betty Castor in Florida -- who focus heavily on local issues and doggedly avoid the liberal label and discussions of Kerry vs. President Bush.

Tenenbaum summed up the strategies in an interview this week, saying Republicans "will use every label to try to define me" as a classic Democratic liberal. "Fortunately, the people of South Carolina know me. . . . I think it will fall on deaf ears, that attempt to label me and try to nationalize me."

...The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations...

[When he was an elected official it was always ] ... easy to make fun of Al Gore. But if there's any truth to the thunderous criticism he's turned loose on the Bush administration this week, it's time to dispense with the jokes and listen seriously to what the man is saying.

If Gore is right, the nation is faced with a crisis of leadership that is perilously close to an emergency.

If he's wrong, then all the folks who have made the easy jokes at his expense can consider themselves vindicated.

Gore said in an interview on Wednesday,"The war in Iraq is the worst strategic fiasco in the history of the United States. It is an unfolding catastrophe without any comparison."

In an echo of the growing chorus of criticism here and around the world, he said the war has not only damaged "our strategic interests" and isolated the U.S. from its allies, it has also made the country more — not less — vulnerable to terror.

In a widely covered speech earlier in the day, Mr. Gore said that Iraq had not become, as President Bush has asserted, " `the central front in the war on terror.' " But he said it has become, unfortunately, "the central recruiting office for terrorists."

The speech was extraordinary — blunt, colorful and delivered with the kind of passion you seldom see in politics anymore. The former vice president described Mr. Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, and said his policies had endangered the nation....

There are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust. One says: You are encircled by monstrous dangers. Give us power over your freedom so we may protect you. The other says: The world is a baffling and hazardous place, but it can be shaped to the will of men.

[John Warner] with courtly manners is a throwback to a forgotten era of congressional comity. But as he leads the Senate's inquiry into abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) also shows another side: a penchant for bucking his party, taking heat and surviving.

Warner says his committee has a "solemn responsibility" to discover what went wrong and to "make sure it never, never happens again." But some conservatives are angry about the high-profile televised hearings, saying the prisoner-abuse issue is overblown and threatens to undermine the United States' primary mission in Iraq....

"I think he should stop the hearings at this point; we've heard enough," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a committee member. "We have a war to win, and we need to keep our talents concentrated on winning the war as opposed to prisoner treatment."

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) complained that Warner and other Senate members have become "mesmerized by cameras."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was irked when Warner, in a departure from normal committee practice, decided to put all abuse-inquiry witnesses -- including the secretary -- under oath, according to Senate sources.

...[Dean]has signed on with Cagle, a company that syndicates political columns and cartoons, to write a weekly column that will be immediately available to more than 500 publications nationwide, according to Cari Dawson Bartley, executive editor and marketing director of Cagle Cartoons Inc....

... will distribute his column to about 700 newspapers ... Laura Gross, a spokeswoman for Dean's Democracy for America organization, says the column will give Dean a chance to talk about political issues.

... Can it get any more bizarre? Only a few weeks before Washington's long-promised hand-over of the keys to Iraq, we discover that the lackey the Pentagon only recently had in mind to manage this very valuable property for the United States is suspected by us of being a world-class con artist and, worse, a spy for America's enemies in Iran. ...Chalabi is outraged. "I am America's best friend in Iraq!" he wails. Chalabi has indeed been close to guys like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle. Perhaps he confused these individuals with the rest of the country, or possibly he mistakenly assumed they represented widely shared American interests.

... [Chalabi] has now gone from a "hero in error" with his lies and manipulation of America prior to the invasion of Iraq to being told this month's $335,000 U.S. government welfare check will be his last, and having his home ransacked by heavily armed American soldiers none too happy about the way Iraq has turned out.

Former Marine Middle East Specialist and Counterintelligence Officer Dale R. Davis is now working in the private sector in Dubai. Recently assigned as the Director of International Programs and Lecturer of Arabic and Middle East Security Studies at the Virginia Military Institute, Davis has been watching the Middle East closely for many years.

He often shares his timely and succinct analyses of Middle East issues via his e-mail list. This week he observes the American military raid, and I have his permission to share it with you in its entirety....

... The U.S. is losing the war in Iraq and is increasingly isolated politically in the Arab world, so what's its response? Blame the media. The U.S. media wouldn't accept such an argument from Bush the candidate, so why accept it from Bush the commander in chief?” said Reese Erlich, a foreign correspondent who has covered the Middle East extensively for 20 years.

The best way to control Al Jazeera and other media outlets that defy Washington's control is to stop atrocities on the ground, analysts say.

”There are ways that the U.S. government could legitimately reduce the negative coverage it gets on AlJazeera." For instance, argues Erlich, "if President Bush wants Al Jazeera to stop airing grisly footage of dead Iraqi civilians, as commander in chief he could order U.S. troops to stop killing them,” ...

It was high time President Bush spoke to the nation of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago, it was our war, and we claimed it proudly. ... [A] minority [i.e., us liberals] that never bought into the expedition and genuinely believed that it would come to grief. But most of us [i.e., "conservatives"] recognized[? desperately hoped? ] that a culture of terror had taken root in the Arab world. We struck, first at Afghanistan and then at the Iraqi regime, out of a broader determination to purge Arab radicalism.

...

But gone is the hubris. Let's face it: Iraq is not going to be America's showcase in the Arab-Muslim world. The president's insistence that he had sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, "not to make them American" is now — painfully — beside the point. The unspoken message of the speech was that no great American project is being hatched in Iraq. If some of the war's planners [i.e., neocon] had thought that Iraq would be an ideal base for American primacy in the Persian Gulf, a beacon from which to spread democracy and reason throughout the Arab world, that notion has clearly been set aside....Back in our time of confidence, we had (rightly in my view) despaired of the United Nations and its machinery and its diplomatic-speak. But we now seek a way out, and an Algerian-born envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is the instrument of our deliverance. So we are all multilateralists now, and the envoy of a world organization entangled in its own scandal in Iraq — the oil-for-food program it administered and is now investigating — will show us the way.

Iraq is treacherous territory, but Mr. Brahimi gives us a promise of precision. The Iraqis shall have a president, two vice presidents, a prime minister and 26 ministers who will run the country. We take our victories where we can. In Falluja, the purveyors of terrorism — nowadays they go by the honored name of mujahedeen — are applying the whip in public to vendors of wine and liquor and pornographic videos. (A measure of justice, it could be said, has finally come to Falluja.) But there is the consolation lamely offered by our president: Iraq today has an observer who attends the meetings of the World Trade Organization!

Imperial expeditions in distant, difficult lands are never easy. And an Arab-Islamic world loaded with deadly means of destruction was destined to test our souls and our patience. This is not "Bush's War." It is — by accident or design, it doesn't matter now — our biggest undertaking in the foreign world since Vietnam. We as a nation pay dearly every day. We fight under the gaze of multitudes in the Arab world who wish us ill, who believe that we are getting our comeuppance.

The gains already accomplished in Iraq, and the gains yet to be secured, are increasingly abstract and hard to pin down. ... The subdued, somber tone with which the war is now described is the beginning of wisdom. In its modern history, Iraq has not been kind or gentle to its people. Perhaps it was folly to think that it was under any obligation to be kinder to strangers....

... According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken in October,[2003] a majority of 18- to 29-year-olds thought the war worthwhile, the same percentage as in the population at large. The same survey found that President Bush had a 9 percent higher approval rating among people under 30 than he did among older respondents.

[In Oct 2003, ] Of my 11 junior-year suite-mates, a racially and geographically diverse group of Democrats, only three opposed the war in Iraq. Across the Yale campus, similar sentiments reigned. During our junior year, when the national debate over Iraq was at its height, one of the most visible student political organizations on campus was the Yale College Students for Democracy, a group of hawkish liberals and neo-conservatives who supported the war. The biggest campus-wide "Support Our Troops" rally was at least as well attended as any antiwar protest.

Certainly the 9/11 attacks left a deep imprint on our political conscience, but my generation was probably predisposed to these more hawkish views long before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

The class of 2004 grew up at a time when it was easy to have faith in the goodness of our government. Vietnam, Watergate and even Iran-contra were not a part of our direct political memory. For my generation, abuse of power meant sexual indiscretions in the Oval Office — not shifting rationales for war. While President Bush's claims about weapons of mass destruction and links between Iraq and Al Qaeda may have revived memories of the Gulf of Tonkin for some of our parents, my generation wasn't inclined toward incredulousness. After all, according to that same poll, 50 percent of those surveyed under 30 said they trusted government to do the right thing; for Americans older than us, that number was 36 percent.

Many of us in the class of 2004 grew up in the 1990's believing that America was a force for good in the world. ... It was only natural that we would apply that same logic to Iraq.

But that logic may not hold. As conditions in Iraq have grown more chaotic, many of us who supported the war are re-evaluating our positions. Over the last year, we've been forced to relearn the lessons of our parents' generation, and it has been a deeply disillusioning experience. The revelation that our government exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction has taught us that you can't always trust authority. The photos of Abu Ghraib and flag-draped coffins have taught us the cost of our untempered idealism about spreading our values.

According to a poll released last month by the Harvard University Institute of Politics, college students are no longer more supportive of President Bush than the population at large, and their support for the war has dropped sharply from 65 percent a year ago to 49 percent last month. But the most notable change, which suggests just how deeply young people have been affected by recent events, is that the percentage of students who describe themselves as liberal has increased significantly over the last year — from 36 percent to 44 percent...

...A lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case said a captain at the Iraqi prison has charged that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was present during some unspecified "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

Citing a recording of a military hearing obtained by the newspaper, The Post said the military lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, was told that Sanchez, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq, and other senior officials were aware of what was taking place at Abu Ghraib....

An Iraqi poll to be released next week shows a surge in the popularity of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical young Shia cleric fighting coalition forces, and suggests nearly nine out of 10 Iraqis see US troops as occupiers and not liberators or peacekeepers.

The poll was conducted by the one-year-old Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is considered reliable enough for the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority to have submitted questions to be included in the study.

Although the results of any poll in Iraq's traumatised society should be taken with caution, the survey highlights the difficulties facing the US authorities in Baghdad as they confront Mr Sadr, who launched an insurgency against the US-led occupation last month....

Saadoun Duleimi, head of the centre, said more than half of a representative sample - comprising 1,600 Shia, Sunni Arabs and Kurds polled in all Iraq's main regions - wanted coalition troops to leave Iraq. This compares with about 20 per cent in an October survey. Some 88 per cent of respondents said they now regarded coalition forces in Iraq as occupiers....

... This is just a reflection of Al-Jazeera's better position to report on what is actually going on in Iraq. While most US reporters are limited to receiving information from the military units with whom they are attached, or from the official Coalition press conferences, Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and Dubai-based Al-Arabiyya actually have reporters on the ground in places like Kufa, Najaf, and Falluja who are in regular contact with the various factions there.

Now for all we know, may be there was no helicopter shot down. We'll find out about that if/when we hear confirmation from US military spokespeople, or if/when the helicopter pictures are broadcast.

But that is not the point. The point is that US journalists, more often than not, are quick to report whatever uncorroborated information that Coalition spokespeople spoonfeed them, but they are in no position to get the kind of reporting--usually called good journalism--that the Arab networks get. (Al Jazeera, on the other hand, also attends all the Coalition and Governing Council press conferences.)

As Arnaud de Borchgrave writes for UPI, "These Arabic channels have some forty crews between them and staff every major city. From inside Fallujah, besieged by U.S. Marines, they broadcast live from bombed out buildings, damaged mosques and an overcrowded hospital."

This accounts for the huge disconnect between what American viewers see on channels like Fox and CNN, and what much of rest of the world sees... .

People were shocked, they were stunned that these abuses were occurring and that the Americans were the perpetrators now. Those who came supposedly to Iraq as the liberators ended up as the tormentors of those people. The irony that these abuses were taking place in Abu Ghraib, the most notorious prison during Saddam's regime, a facility that should have been razed to the ground and in its place built a shrine or memorial to its many victims. These abuses were taking place in that most notorious jail. ...

If you wanted to write a script or a scenario as to how you undermine the credibility of the United States in the Middle East today, you couldn't have done a better job. I thought last month with the incredible violence in Iraq, with President Bush's embrace of Ariel Sharon that America's credibility in the nation reached it's nadir. I think I'm mistaken, I think now. I think one could argue if you have any illusions about winning hearts and mind in Iraq and the Arab world for that matter, you should forget that. ...

... Qatar's first deputy prime minister of the foreign minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jaber al-Thani denied pressures to be practiced on his country over al-Jazeera satellite tv channel.

In statements to the press in Washington, he said that the channel reflects the Arab public opinion, stressing the independence of al-Jazeera in its media coverage.

The Qatari official did not deny the American official discussion of al-Jazeera to the events in Iraq and the Middle East area. He indicated he had explained the view point of the government of Qatar concerning this issue, in particular.

He said " I can not say that what came from al-Jazeera was positive or professional, but we have accepted a free media and such a matter will have its positives and negatives."...

The Gettysburg Address was delivered by a president called upon to honor the dead. It is considered the greatest American speech.

It was Lincoln's dedication of a cemetery for soldiers who died in battle at Gettysburg, Pa., for the "new nation" brought forth four score and seven years before.

It was a great speech not only for limning so well the cause for which those soldiers died, but for its humility in acknowledging the "poor power" of a president to add or detract from the immensity of such sacrifice.

That was 1863. America is a different place today.

Today, the president doesn't dedicate military cemeteries. He doesn't attend military funerals. He won't allow photographs to be taken of military caskets being unloaded from planes.

The cause for which American soldiers die today - the alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - is a dubious cause. The failure to find such weapons [i.e., WMD] has rendered the cause so dubious that even the president makes jokes about it....

.... The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made al-Jazeera the most watched television network in the Arab world, with 50 million viewers worldwide - with 8 million of them in Europe, many of whom are based in France and Britain.

Powell's complaint came as the Bush administration continued to fight criticism over its US media ban on images of military coffins, which critics say is part of a plan to sanitize the Iraq war and stem a drop in American support for the occupation.

Al-Jazeera's coverage of Iraq includes more graphic images of violence, including child victims of the fighting, than its US counterparts. Many Arabs, including Arab-Americans, see the station as more accurate than US television, even if it may display an anti-American bias. ....

... the beginning of the end of the reign of the Likudnik War Party in Washington occurred this week when Americans were treated to what their President and Pentagon wanted to deny them the opportunity to see--the rising cost of the Bush-Sharon policies in the Middle East in the flag-enshrouded coffins of the sons and daughters of America returning home for their final resting place. Mr. Kristol, Mr. Farah, and Mr. Robinson among many others, lost the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Average American when the image below was posted on the front pages of the major print dailies in the United States this week along with TV and Internet transmissions. It will guarantee the departure of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney this fall, along with the forced eviction of Neo-Cons from the American Conservative Movement and the renaissance of an American Right committed to limited government, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the return of the Old Republic. Take it to the bank.