sneak preview...
on the way home from work tonight, i was listening to one of the rare lib talk shows out there, and as a guest he had this guy that was purportedly dissecting and debunking the nick berg video. i'm going to do more research tommorow, but two things struck me right off:
a. in the 20 minutes i listened to him, he stated and provided "evidence" that: nick berg was cia, and caught by al queda; nick berg was a nobody and the whole thing was a set up by the cia to make it look like al queda; nick berg was actually al queda himself, caught by the cia who then did this to make it look like aq killed him; the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by lyddie england and the folks at abu garib; the exectution never took place, the whole thing is a hoax and nick berg is still alive somewhere, either in the residences of cia or al queda; the execution did take place but was edited in such a way that was "suspicious"...
there's more, but i can't think of 'em all right now...
2. the other thing that bothered me, and this seems to be "systemic" among people that are trying to keep the prison scandal on the front page right now, is that he kept citing the taguba report as actual fact, then criticising callers because they haven't read it. well, i have read it, from what i can tell the taguba report lists all sorts of things that the military is looking into, stuff it's heard rumors about and wants to find the truth about, things the inspector finds "credible" but has no substatiation for, but in no way states that these things are acutal fact. it is the preliminary to a real investigation.
so stop freaking citing it like it's the the holy word of god, or even an assertion of positive fact.
