The worst is yet to come, Rumsfeld says:

“There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane,” he said. “It’s going to get a good deal more terrible, I’m afraid.”

Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and “acting inappropriately with a dead body.” The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus f***ing Christ.

UPDATE: Moments ago, I signed a petition calling on Donald Rumsfeld to resign. I had been on the fence about this until now, but after reading these latest revelations, I now feel that Rummy must go, for the good of the country. I don’t care if he’s a scapegoat — we need a scapegoat. We need to show the world how seriously we take this, and that means accountability at the highest levels. In other words: heads must roll.

Literally moments after signing the petition, I went to Andrew Sullivan’s blog and found a link to an article from The Economist declaring, “Resign, Rumsfeld.” Heh. Further proof that The Economist and I always agree about everything. Money quote, with emphasis added:

Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won’t resign, Mr Bush should fire him.

Another good quote that I whole-heartedly agree with:

The pictures of abuse, especially the one on our cover of the hooded man wired as if for electrocution, stand an awful chance of becoming iconic images that could haunt America for years to come, just as the famous photograph of a naked girl running during a napalm attack did during the Vietnam war. One way of dealing with that risk is by countering it with your own iconic act: ejecting the man at the head of the Pentagon, the man most identified with America’s use of military power during the past three years.

The Economist also points out that if Rummy does lose his job, it would be “unwise” to replace him with, say, Paul Wolfowitz.

California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, has condemned the torture of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. soldiers, and has called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over the scandal. But yesterday, she couldn’t bring herself to vote in favor of a House resolution condemning the actions of the soldiers involved.

Neither could 48 other Democrats, including eight of Pelosi’s fellow Californians, six New Yorkers, and the entire Ohio Democratic delegation (all five of them). One Arizona congressman, Raul M. Grijalva, voted against the measure, as did 26 other Dems from around the country. (One Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, also voted against the resolution.) The final roll call was 365-50.

The obvious question for the 50 dissenters is: Why?

Examining the full text of the resolution, it is difficult to find anything objectionable. It is hard to believe, for example, that a bunch of “usual-suspect” liberals — Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, etc. — would have suddenly become so pro-military as to disagree that “the American people and the world are dismayed by revelations of abuses inflicted upon detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad” or that “the United States Central Command has identified problems of leadership, chain of command, and training that contributed to the instances of abuse” or that “such abuses are offensive to the principles and values of the American people.”

So perhaps these “Democrats for torture” actually opposed the resolution because of its flip side — the part that praises the brave men and women who make up the bulk of our military? That seems slightly more plausible, but again, it’s hard to find anything worth voting against:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives…

Declares that the alleged crimes of a handful of individuals should not detract from the commendable sacrifices of over 300,000 members of the United States Armed Forces who have served, or who are serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom…

Expresses the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or who are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Expresses the support and thanks of the Nation to the families and friends of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors, and Coast Guardsmen who have served, or who are serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and

Expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives and the American people for the partnership of the United States with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.

So if there’s nothing objectionably anti-military, and nothing objectionably pro-military, then what was so wrong with this resolution that 49 Democrats, including the minority leader, felt the need to vote against it? Well, according to Reuters, it isn’t what the resolution said — it’s what it didn’t say:

While foes of the resolution deplored the mistreatment of inmates, they said the measure should have also affirmed the need for bipartisan congressional investigations. …

Democrats had sought to broaden the House resolution to declare the need for congressional investigations that would examine alleged abuse by military personnel as well as by civilian personnel and “into the chain of command.”

“Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to determine what went wrong,” said Rep. James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat.

The Hill has more on the partisan machinations that led to the votes against the resolution.

Leaving aside the question of whether the Democrats’ desire for a congressional investigation is right or wrong, I’m struck by the silliness of their decision, after losing that particular battle, to actually vote against the final resolution as written. Their opponents thwarted their attempts to include an amendment, so, like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum, they proceeded to vote against a resolution whose only alleged sin was one of omission. They didn’t disagree with anything in the text, but they voted “nay” on it anyway, just to spite the Republicans!!!

I know this sort of thing is common in Washington, but I still think it’s really, really stupid. Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to see the representatives of the people in the Congress — my Congress — put partisanship aside for a moment and, oh I don’t know, unanimously condemn the torture of Iraqis.

Whatever their rationale, the fact is that Pelosi and 49 others are permanently on record as not condemning torture. And I don’t think that’s something to be particularly proud of.

It’s the Rummy-O-Meter! Heh.

Rated PG-13 for some strong language. (Hat tip: Wonkette.)

John Kerry is in Phoenix today. He will be speaking at the Democratic Leadership Council’s annual gathering at 9:30 AM MST, just over 90 minutes from now, at the Biltmore Hotel, which is several miles from my office.

According to this press release, Kerry will leave from Phoenix Sky Harbor airport at 1:30 PM. And as of yesterday, the Arizona Republic reported:

Kerry’s appearances are not open to the public, but his campaign was trying to make arrangements for the public to give him a send-off at 1:30 p.m. at Sky Harbor International Airport. Details were unavailable Wednesday.

Hmm… the airport isn’t far from where I work… I’ll have to see if I can find out more.

UPDATE: Just called the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters. They said there won’t a public airport event after all, because “the airport didn’t allow it.” Oh, well.

A tax refund of $529.20 magically appeared in my savings account this morning (having been deposited there by the IRS, of course). Woohoo! :)

UPDATE: Today is also payday, so $954.85 was deposited in my checking account this morning, as well. I think this may be the single most lucrative day of my life so far: I’m $1,484.05 richer than I was when I went to bed last night! :)

Okay everybody, turn your cynicism and partisanship switches to the “off” position for a moment: This is touching.

Okay, back to normal now. :)

Man, this week seems to be going by very slowly. I can’t believe it’s only Wednesday! It feels like at least Thursday… I’d even believe Friday.

I blame the Sasser worm. And the heat. And John Ashcroft.

Anyway, seeing as how today is yet another day when I didn’t really get to take a full lunch break, I just wanted to post a brief update now about — what else? — Powerball. Tonight’s jackpot is $170 million, and my office bought 55 tickets. I contributed $5 to the pot, meaning I stand to win roughly $15.5 million (before taxes) if we hit it big.

The odds of that happening: 1 in 2,191,396. (That’s 55 in 120,526,770, for those inclined to check my math.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: Of course, the odds above fail to take into account the possibility of somebody else also winning, resulting in a split jackpot. So the odds of me winning $15.5 million are somewhat below 1 in 2,191,396. But the odds of me winning 1/11th of a piece of the jackpot — whatever the amount of a single jackpot piece ends up being — are 1 in 2,191,396.

Now, here’s a question for the math whizzes. The odds of winning at least $3.00 (that’s the minimum prize, if you get only the “Powerball” right and nothing else) are supposedly 1 in 36.06, which, by my calculations, comes to 3,342,395 out of 120,526,770. What is the correct way to calculate our odds of winning at least $3.00, given that we have 55 tickets? It can’t be 55 times the numerator, because that would end up producing odds of 1 in 0.66 — i.e., we have a better than 100% chance of winning — and that can’t be right, since there are fully 117,184,375 non-winning tickets out there. So what is the correct way to do that math? I’m drawing a blank…. Mike? :)

UPDATE: We didn’t win. Neither did anybody, so Saturday’s jackpot is now $205 million.