EDITORIAL - The leading left wing periodicals are practically tripping all over themselves on the Iraqi prisoner abuse incident at Abu Ghraib. The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive and The American Prospect vie to outdo each other as to whom be can blame America the most for the ills of the world.

Both The Nation and Mother Jones have compared the incidents at Abu Ghraib to the My Lai massacre where 400 Vietnamese civilians were murdered by U.S. troops back in 1968. Aside from the fact that Abu Ghraib incident, while ugly and vile, did not produce any fatalities, it also trivializes those who lost their lives at My Lai. Michael Tomasky of The American Prospect is moved to call President Bush ?dumber than we thought.? Wow! What incisive political commentary. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive took radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to task for describing the incident as a ?college fraternity prank.? Yet Rothschild failed to mention that Limbaugh had, in fact, condemned the act. ?It?s bad. It?s unfortunate, shouldn?t have happened. It?s over! We found out about it. We?re going to do something about it. We?re investigating it.? Limbaugh said.

Yet when it comes to Nicholas Berg, who was brutally executed by al Qaeda terrorists, these same outlets are either silent or are content to blame the usual suspects ? the United States and Israel.

As of this writing, the online editions of both Mother Jones and The American Prospect are mum on the execution of an American civilian. Matt Bivens of The Nation blamed Berg?s murder on the failure of the U.S. military to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man widely believed to be responsible for carrying out Berg?s murder. Bivens self-righteously shrieked, ?Isn?t it time, that we asked ? again ? why we did not kill Zarqawi when we had the chance??

Well, if the U.S. military had killed al-Zarqawi you can bet The Nation and every other left wing rag in this country would condemn the U.S. for exercising aggression, inflaming the passions of Islamic fundamentalists and perpetuating cycles of violence. More to the point, if the U.S. had to kill al-Zarqawi it most likely would have been based on information gathered in an interrogation setting such as ? the Abu Ghraib prison. Information is not easy to extract in a war situation and the people one must gather this information from are not all nice and sweetness. If the information that led to the murder of al-Zarqawi originated from a detainee at Abu Ghraib The Nation would have come out with its My Lai analogies faster than you can say quagmire.

But again I?ll reserve my harshest criticisms for Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive.

Rothschild?s commentary on Berg starts out promising. ?This barbarism sickens me, as I?m sure it does anyone with a shred of moral fiber,? Rothschild writes. He even notes that Nicholas Berg, like Daniel Pearl before him, was Jewish and states that ?not enough has been made of the crude and ugly anti-Semitism that runs through Al Qaeda?s ideology.? So far so good.

Unfortunately, Rothschild does not blame Al Qaeda for Nicholas Berg?s death. Whose fault is Nicholas Berg?s death? Why George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, of course:

Unfortunately, George W. Bush?s policies have been enflaming Islamic hatred of Americans and Jews alike. His unprovoked war against Iraq, the inept occupation that led to the grotesque humiliation and torture of Iraqi prisoners, and Bush?s blessing for every unilateral act of Ariel Sharon ? all these served only to reinforce the basest prejudices that now circulate so widely.

Rothschild then hastens to add, ?Don?t get me wrong. Nothing, nothing, excuses the slaughter of Nicholas Berg.?

But Mr. Rothschild, you just did excuse the slaughter of Nicholas Berg.

Al Qaeda did not need any reason to slaughter Nicholas Berg anymore than it did Daniel Pearl. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to bomb Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia or the U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to kill 3,000 people on 09/11. All of this dated the American incursion into Iraq and for that matter the election of Ariel Sharon. Al Qaeda?s mission is to create world dominated by a narrow interpretation of Islam. All those who stand in its way are to be destroyed.

For Matthew Rothschild to blame either Bush or Sharon for Berg?s death is defamation. For Matthew Rothschild to excuse Nicholas Berg?s death as retribution for the war in Iraq or Ariel Sharon?s efforts to prevent pregnant women and children from being murdered by suicide bombers gives legitimacy to Al Qaeda?s cause and for that Rothschild should be ashamed.

Then again, since when has the Left has any sense of shame (expect for America and Israel)? Besides, isn?t it the Left that argues that Al Qaeda and Saddam had nothing to do with each other? If that argument is true then why should Al Qaeda be compelled to avenge the deposed Saddam? Well, the Left doesn?t think out its arguments to that level of detail. The raison d??tre of the Left is to define itself by embracing anything that blames and scapegoats America and Israel for the ills of the world.