Fiat lux: Unveiling the Vatican's secrets

Interesting news from the Holy See:

Pope Benedict has decided to open all Vatican archives from 1922 to 1939, giving new insight into what the Catholic Church knew and did as Europe saw the rise of Nazism in Germany and the Spanish Civil War.

The Vatican said on Friday it would open its central files, known as the Secret Archives, and files of its Secretariat of State for the pontificate of Pope Pius XI on September 18.

I'm curious. Aren't you? It would be nice to know what the Vatican knew, and when, what it did and what it ignored, what it thought and how it acted in a time of extraordinary crisis not just throughout Europe but around the world.

Kuwaiti women head to the polls

WaPo has the story here:

Kuwaiti women voted and competed for office in parliamentary elections on Thursday for the first time in the Gulf Arab state...

Parliament passed a law in May 2005 giving women the right to vote and stand as candidates in elections for the 50-seat National Assembly of the oil-producing country.

Officials said some 250 candidates were standing, including 28 women determined to make headway against daunting odds and beat seasoned male opponents, many of whom are former parliamentarians seeking re-election...

Women can vote and stand for election in four of the six countries in the conservative, patriarchal Gulf Arab region. They are banned in Saudi Arabia, where women's rights are limited, and there are no political polls in the UAE.

Men and women voted at different polling stations, but turnout may be as high as 78 percent in some areas.

This is a huge advance for liberalism and women's rights in an especially illiberal part of the world, one that isn't particularly friendly to either women or their rights.

There is much left to be done in Kuwait. There are no official political parties, there is no real opposition other than "a loose alliance of pro-reform ex-MPs, Islamists and liberals," and there is ongoing hostility towards women's rights ("even some women were against them having the vote") and the reform movement generally. As well, "[t]he opposition accuses some members of government of trying to turn parliament into a rubber-stamp assembly through vote-buying".

Still, progress is progress. And Kuwait certainly seems to be heading in the right direction.

In defence of net neutrality

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has put a "hold" on a telecommunications bill that, if passed, would allow Internet providers to discriminate with respect to the content they provide to consumers. Very well done, Senator. Do not back down.

Daily Kos's mcjoan has more here.

In the House, Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts (my representative when I attended Tufts and of whom I am still a big supporter) has launched his own "Fight to Save the Internet". It's an admirable effort, and you can find out more about it here. His statement in response to the defeat of his "Net Neutrality Amendment" is here. Also very well done, Congressman. Do not back down either.

For more on the issue of "net neutrality" and the Bush Administration's attempts to destroy it, see this recent editorial in The New Republic.

In a nutshell, the issue is this: Under 1934 rules, "[t]elecom companies couldn't charge website proprietors to have their content sent to consumers more expeditiously". However, "last August, George W. Bush's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exempted telecoms that provide Internet connections from these restrictions". What this means is that "companies will be able to charge content providers a fee to deliver their content to consumers and, in particular, an additional surcharge to deliver their content to consumers more quickly -- that is, they will be able to create a faster toll lane on the information superhighway".

Would this be a problem? Not for profit-driven telecom companies, but certainly for both (most) content providers and the consumers of content. In other words, for all of us who don't run telecom companies. And, as the editors of TNR argue, for political discourse and even for democracy itself. With internet providers able to set up a two-lane system -- a fast lane for preferred content and a slow one for the rest -- consumers would be denied access to content equally:

Under the new FCC guidelines, those companies will be able to charge content providers a fee to deliver their content to consumers and, in particular, an additional surcharge to deliver their content to consumers more quickly -- that is, they will be able to create a faster toll lane on the information superhighway. If they want, the telecoms can favor their own services and penalize competitors -- for instance, voice over Internet protocol companies like Vonage -- by denying them faster service. They can even charge lucrative fees to companies for exclusive access to the fast lane at the expense of their competitors, giving, for example, L.L. Bean an advantage over Lands' End. And, by making the fast lane prohibitively expensive, they can force start-up ventures and noncommercial providers (like blogs) onto the bumpy dirt roads of the Internet.

This, presumably, is what the Bush Administration wants. A telecom-friendly Internet that maximizes profits for the telecoms by pitting market competitors against one another. In other words, an Internet that allows its providers to discriminate based on who pays them for access to the fast lane, or in favour of their own services and against the competition, or along political, ideological, or other subjective lines. And many content providers wouldn't even be able to pay the initial fee, let alone some kind of "surcharge".

This isn't the sexiest story in the news these days, but it's an important one with far-reaching ramifications for the Internet as we know it.

We as consumers will suffer. We as citizens will suffer.

Once again, the Bush Administration shows that it is, when it comes right down to it, and whatever its high-falutin' rhetoric, no friend of the free market, no friend of liberty, and no friend of democracy.

We are a government of laws

By Creature

Guess what? The president of the United States, much to his surprise, is not above the law. And even better, not above the Geneva Conventions. Says who? The few remaining sane justices on the Supreme Court. Read on and give three cheers that, for now, our Constitution is still alive and well.

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. [Read More]

This is bigger than just Guantanamo, this is about torture across the water board. Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog explains why:

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administration has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

I'm guessing the president won't be using a signing statement to get around this ruling.

Think Progress takes things even further. Today's ruling may even impact the president's illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Kevin Drum nicely sums up the significance of today's ruling:

Considering how deferential the court normally is to executive power in wartime, this is an extraordinary decision. The court pretty clearly feels that Bush has way overstepped his constitutional boundaries.

Now watch as the rubber-stamp Congress acts quickly to put the power, they so eagerly give away, back into the president's hands.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

In his own words

By Creature

"There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it and no excuse for any newspaper to print it." -President Bush 06/28/2006





Tom DeLay has more...

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

What the hell is Obama doing?

Well, he's criticizing his fellow Democrats for not being open to and respecting people of faith. Indeed, Democrats do not "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people".

First, this isn't true, as Steve Benen says. Yes, Democrats need to do a better job reaching out to, and making sure voters know they're open to and respect, people of faith. But Democrats aren't exactly hardcore secularists who oppose the very presence of religion in the public square. A few of them, perhaps, but at most a small minority of them and certainly not in the leadership.

Second, it's a stupid thing to say publicly. It's the Republican spin. On this, let me quote, in full, Atrios's open letter to Obama:

Dear Senator Obama,

If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.

Love and kisses,

Atrios

P.S. What Stoller says.

Sure, love and kisses from me, too. I like Obama a great deal. The thought of an '08 presidential ticket with the junior senator from Illinois in the Veep spot fills me with pleasure.

And, yes, what Matt Stoller says. And also what fellow MyDDer Chris Bowers says: "Obama's comments lend tri-partisan support (Democrats, Republicans and the media) to a narrative that Democrats are hostile toward people of faith. This tri-partisan support will result in a "closing of the triangle" against Democrats where it become conventional wisdom that Democrats are hostile to people of faith."

See also David Sirota, who says much the same thing (saying it very well, mind you); Firedoglake's Pachacutec, who doesn't much care for Obama; and AMERICAblog, where John Aravosis writes that Obama was "mostly" right (with crucial caveats).

**********

Here's my own open letter:

Dear Senator,

Please stop. Now.

You can (and must) do better. Those of us with confidence in you, and in your future, continue to stand by you. But we're Democrats, just like you, and our party must break free of the lies and deceptions that constitute the Republican spin. You made some important points in your speech, points that Democrats ought to consider seriously, but you of all people, a great orator already, must know that words have lives beyond their immediate context. Did you not consider how your words would be taken? How they would be seen to reinforce the Republican spin?

And, furthermore, do you really believe that Democrats do not "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people"? If so, think again. I think you'll find that you're wrong. Perception aside (and Democrats need to work on perception, granted), Democrats are quite open to faith. That should be your message. The positive, not the negative -- at least in public.

Now go. The future awaits you.

Sincerely,

Michael Stickings

Gerrymandering unlimited: Partisanship, redistricting, and the corruption of American democracy

The Supreme Court yesterday "upheld almost all of Texas' Republican-friendly U.S. House election district map," according to the Houston Chronicle. More:

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the 23rd District in southwest Texas, represented by Republican Henry Bonilla, violated the Voting Rights Act because its design trampled the rights of some Hispanic voters. Reshaping the district, a task that apparently now is assigned to federal court in Texas, would force a change in at least one other neighboring district.

But the high court ruling preserved the other districts, in the Houston area and elsewhere, that were created by the Texas Legislature in 2003. This includes a Dallas-area district whose constitutionality was challenged by black voters.

The Supreme Court has essentially upheld what I will neologistically call partisanized democracy. These reconfigured Texas districts, after all, were dreamed up and drawn by no less a rabid partisan than Tom DeLay. And DeLay, as one would expect, drew them to benefit Republicans. As The New York Times put it, "the court rejected the larger premise," that is, "that Texas Republicans had unconstitutionally reorganized the political map to solidify their majority in Congress". But, as Adam B wrote at Daily Kos, this was nothing short of "politically-based gerrymandering". As BooMan argues, there ought to be "legislation that will formalize [i.e., de-partisanize] the redistricting process".

But what of racialized democracy? The Supreme Court ruled that Bonilla's district had been gerrymandered to such a degree that it "violated the Voting Rights Act" and "trampled the rights of some Hispanic voters" (in the Times's words). It may have let DeLay off the hook for politically gerrymandering certain districts, but it didn't excuse the anti-Hispanic gerrymandering of that one district. Does it not follow that DeLay himself "violated the Voting Rights Act" and "trampled the rights of some Hispanic voters"?

We may focus on the Supreme Court's free pass on political gerrymandering, on partisanizing democracy, but it seems to me that the Republicans' conduct with respect to Texas's 23rd District is just as serious a problem. The Supreme Court must agree. It didn't let them off the hook for that one. They -- and DeLay in particular -- may have been vindicated, at least in legal terms according to the decision of a partisanized court (the Times claims that "[t]he outcome was something of a vindication for Mr. DeLay"), but shouldn't they be held accountable for what even this Supreme Court ruled they did wrong?

For more, see Steve Benen's excellent take at The Carpetbagger Report: "This very well may turn out to be one of those be-careful-what-you-wish-for moments for the Republican Party." Republicans "started this," after all, and: "Republicans have really left Dems with no other choice. Dems didn't want a re-redistricting war, but there's simply no way the party can just stand back and watch Republicans gain seats in 'red' states without considering the same tactic in 'blue' states."

All of which is bad for democracy. Democrats must indeed do what they have to do, but the ultimate victim of this escalating war of political gerrymandering will be the demos itself.

Targeting Khaled, Buzzing Bashir

Well, according to the AP, an 18-year old Israeli has been killed by "a Palestinian militant group," high-level Hamas leaders, including the Palestinian deputy prime minister, were detained by Israeli forces, perhaps to "be used to trade for [a] captured [Israeli] soldier," and the Israeli offensive in Gaza continues (rather peacefully).

But that's not all. According to The Jerusalem Post, Israel is targeting Hamas's Syria-based leader Khaled Mashaal for assassination. It was he, Israel contends, who "orchestrated the kidnapping" of that Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. Indeed, four Israeli planes even "flew over [i.e., buzzed] Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's palace in the city of Latakia in northwestern Syria early Wednesday morning," an "operation aimed at pressuring the Syrian leadership to expel... Mashaal from Damascus". Needless to say, Syrian forces "opened fire on the warplanes, forcing them to flee".

Pay attention to this developing story. There's potential here for some serious escalation.

James Dobson is a dangerous idiot

So CNN -- so often ridiculed by the right for alleged (and unsubstantiated) liberal biases -- has given a high-profile platform to Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the bigoted proponent of oppression, repression, and suppression in the name of his own "traditional values".

In a piece at CNN.com, Dobson attacks "the liberal press" for falsely identifying popular support for same-sex marriage; claims that the Senate's opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage "turned their backs on this most basic social institution" (i.e., marriage as defined narrowly by Dobson and his bigoted ilk); finds an overall "bias against the family" (i.e., as defined narrowly by Dobson and his bigoted ilk) everywhere he looks in "the mainstream televised news networks"; ridicules the states'-rights argument that has long been a key conservative cause, claiming that having 50 states making their own laws with respect to same-sex marriage would "would create utter chaos" (which it wouldn't -- states are already free to make their own laws with respect to many issues); suggests that "activist judges" on the left (he likely doesn't think there are any on the right) would not respect the will of the people (i.e., are anti-democratic, with democracy defined narrowly by Dobson and his bigoted ilk); and -- yes, believe it or not, you can read it for yourself -- compares the movement to ban same-sex marriage to the movement to abolish slavery (more precisely, the British abolitionist movement of the evangelical William Wilberforce).

And, lest I forget, there's this: "If the battle to protect marriage takes even five more years, liberal judges and activists will have destroyed this 5,000-year-old institution, which was designed by the Creator, Himself. Even now, they are close to achieving that coveted objective."

Where, oh where, to begin? Dobson's bigotry, supported by his own brand of Christianity, speaks for itself. This is a man who is blinded by hatred, both hatred of gays and lesbians as somehow sub-human and hatred of his political opponents. He hides behind something as noble as abolitionism, but, as Shakespeare's Sister puts it, "none too few Americans of any color would take exception to our horrendous history of slavery being invoked in such a manner, but perhaps fewer will balk at the British reference".

Why not American abolitionism, Jimmy D.? Why not a non-white abolitionist? (Shakes has some ideas. Make sure to read her post -- in particular, I must agree with her blunt characterization of Dobson as a "homobigot retrofuck". You won't find that in the mainstream press, but it's as accurate a characterization as you're likely to find anywhere.)

Consider, too, what my fellow TMVer David Schraub has to say at The Debate Link:

Am I reading Dobson right that gay marriage poses a greater moral threat than slavery? That's simply stunning. Folks like Dobson use and abuse the civil rights movement for their own agendas, but seem to have very little awareness of the gravity of the wrong itself.

Hmm...maybe the way Black people could properly remember their tragedy would be to support equal rights and citizenship for their gay compatriots. The most logical descendant of Loving v. Virginia, after all, is Goodridge v. Department of Health.

Yes, that's my reading of Dobson, too. Yet I don't find it stunning. Not from someone like Dobson.

Anyway, I've had enough. Why give a dangerous idiot like Dobson even more space here at The Reaction? All I need to add is that he's a mover and shaker in the Republican Party, a leader of its all-important base.

Well done, CNN. I didn't have much respect for you before you put this outpouring of hate on your website. It's not that you're liberal or conservative or anything of the kind. It's just that you're so clearly an institution of cowardice. How else to explain your decision to give a bigot like Dobson such a high-profile platform?

Have I mentioned that he's a bigot?

Senate rejects amendment on flag burning

The Senate has voted down a proposed constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning. So, you think, sanity rules in the Senate? No. The vote was 66 to 34, one short of passage. If you're counting, that's an insanity ratio of almost two to one. One wonders what Madison would think now of his great repository of deliberative democracy. I suspect he might just disown it altogether.

Senator Lautenberg of my former home state of New Jersey: "This is politics at its worst." Yes, just about. As Senator Feingold put it, such an amendment would "cut back the Bill of Rights for the first time". Much like President Bush's beloved amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage.

These are your Republicans at work. In desperation, which is where they are now, looking ahead to November, they play the patriotism card, the politics of scoundrels.

How predictable.

On a more serious note, though, if you let them get away with it, they'll take your rights away.

(See also Shakespeare's Sister, Echidne, Steve Benen, Norbizness, Ann Althouse, Christy Hardin Smith, Jill, Kathy Kattenburg, and DownWithTyranny.)

Israel launches Gaza offensive

From the BBC:

The Israeli army has begun a ground offensive in southern Gaza to try to gain the release of an Israeli soldier.

The incursion comes hours after Israeli aircraft struck at bridges and a power plant in the Gaza Strip.

Cpl Gilad Shalit was abducted by Palestinian militants during a raid on an Israeli post near Gaza on Sunday.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls this a "limited offensive" that targets the "terrorist infrastructure". Nonetheless, one wonders how this situation could escalate over the coming days.

My sentiments are with the Israelis, although the scope of the offensive concerns me. I hope they know what they're doing.

For more, see Counterterrorism Blog, which suggests that "[t]his operation will be extensive and could mean the complete end of the Hamas government". My friend Sister Toldjah agrees that Israel will likely "[step] it up". Captain Ed suggests that "the Israelis have a very good idea where most of the terrorist assets in Gaza are located, and they may try to wipe out as much of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as possible during this exercise".

Haaretz has more. At The Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick says that the Israeli leadership has "nothing useful to say" and won't "[make] Israel safer".

A snake like Zelig

I love animals, but, like Indiana Jones, snakes aren't exactly my favourites of the animal kingdom. Still, the discovery of a "chameleon-like" snake in Borneo is, well, quite the discovery.

This creature, which "belongs to the Enhydris genus of rear-fanged water snakes," is "about 50cm (18 inches) long, and venomous". According to the WWF, it "may exist only in one river basin".

This is yet another reason for environmental conservation/preservation, it seems to me, particularly of the rain forests. "In the last 10 years, more than 350 new animal and plant species have been discovered on Borneo."

Think what we're losing, what this planet is losing, as a direct result of our failure to act responsibly.

The attack on America's free press

Not too long ago, I wrote about what I consider to be the shame of America's free press, that is, the mainstream news media's gullibility with respect to the White House's preferred spin and their refusal, or inability, to do their jobs properly:

Forget the liberal press. The accurate adjective is gullible. It wants a story, any story, preferably a new story. Apparently, the story of Bush's demise and Republican collapse is old. Apparently, the White House got out the spin and the spin is preferable to the truth. Much easier to regurgitate "happy talk" than to do the hard journalistic work of investigation and analysis. Much easier to let yourself be manipulated by the powers-that-be than to do your job properly and effectively.

For more, see here (with a follow-up here).

But let me make one thing abundantly clear: The shame of America's free press has been eclipsed by, and is far less troubling than, the attack on that same free press by the White House, Republicans, and conservatives generally. These attackers of the free press don't want a free press at all. They want a loyal press, a press that regurgitates the latest right-wing talking points, a press that amounts to little more than a purveyor of propaganda. In short, they want, as I've said before, Pravda. Fox News, of course, is already America's Pravda, or, more specifically, the White House's Pravda, and the Republican Congress's Pravda. The conservative movement has a few Pravda-like organs, spreading the preferred spin around to such partisan, party-line-toeing outlets as Fox News, The Weekly Standard, and National Review.

As you may know, much of the White House's anti-press bile is currently being hurled at The New York Times. According to the Times itself:

President Bush on Monday condemned as "disgraceful" the disclosure last week by The New York Times and other newspapers of a secret program to investigate and track terrorists that relies on a vast international database that includes Americans' banking transactions.

It doesn't much matter, in this regard, that "Congress was briefed," as Bush put it. The Times reported on the story of secret financial tracking and should not be criticized for doing its job. Democratic leaders like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid have been briefed on the program, but, as Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) put it, "There are very serious constitutional and legal questions that have been raised, and they're being obscured by this almost ad hominem attack on The New York Times".

Republicans and conservatives aren't content to defend a program that may or may not be defensible. They want to attack the opposition, and this now gives them an opportunity to attack the free press, a press that freely reported on a story that puts the White House on the defensive. (The Bush White House's m.o., right from the start, has been to do things in secret, secret even from Congress and especially from Democrats, and then to go after anyone who unveils those secrets.) Along this line, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has "called on the attorney general to investigate whether The Times's decision to publish the article violated the Espionage Act" and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has, according to Editor & Publisher, singled out the Times for special criticism.

For more, see BooMan, Think Progress, and Greg Sargent at HuffPo.

And, for a must-read, see this exceptional post by Glenn Greenwald:

Any doubts about whether the Bush administration intends to imprison unfriendly journalists (defined as "journalists who fail to obey the Bush administration's orders about what to publish") were completely dispelled this weekend. As I have noted many times before, one of the most significant dangers our country faces is the all-out war now being waged on our nation's media -- and thereby on the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press -- by the Bush administration and its supporters, who are furious that the media continues to expose controversial government policies and thereby subject them to democratic debate. After the unlimited outpouring of venomous attacks on the Times this weekend, I believe these attacks on our free press have become the country's most pressing political issue.

Documenting the violent rhetoric and truly extremist calls for imprisonment against the Times is unnecessary for anyone paying even minimal attention the last few days. On every cable news show, pundits and even journalists talked openly about whether the editors and reporters of the Times were traitors deserving criminal punishment. The Weekly Standard, always a bellwether of Bush administration thinking, is now actively crusading for criminal prosecution against the Times. And dark insinuations that the Times ought to be physically attacked are no longer the exclusive province of best-selling right-wing author Ann Coulter, but -- as Hume's Ghost recently documented -- are now commonly expressed sentiments among all sorts of "mainstream" Bush supporters. Bush supporters are now engaged in all-out, unlimited warfare against journalists who are hostile to the administration and who fail to adhere to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief about what to print.

The clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind. George Bush is Good and the administration wants nothing other than to stop The Terrorists from killing us. There is no need for oversight over what they are doing because we can trust our political officials to do good on their own. We don't need any courts or any Congress or any media serving as a "watchdog" over the Bush administration. There is no reason to distrust what they do. We should -- and must -- let them act in total secrecy for our own good, for our protection. And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.

It has come to this. The First Amendment is under attack. The very concept of a free press is under attack. The press may not always do its job properly, but, above all, it must be free to do its job. The White House, the Republican Congress, and the conservative organs that support them simply do not want to live in such a free society, a society with a press that is free to criticize them. However much they may talk the talk of freedom and democracy, their vision for America includes, it seems, one-party rule, a press that acts as that party's mouthpiece, and an ignorant citizenry that doesn't know the difference between truth and spin.

Where's George Orwell when you need him?

Zzzzz

By Creature

There is a fierce debate raging in the Senate over the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning. It's crazy in the chamber, crazy I tell ya.

That's not to say the senators were feeling energetic as they took up the amendment. The day's session started at 2 p.m., but by 2:21, there was no senator on the floor to speak, and the chamber went into a quorum call -- its equivalent of a nap -- for the next hour.

If it wasn't obvious before, it certainly is now, our government is officially asleep at the wheel.

Since it's time for my quorum call, head on over to The Carpetbagger Report and Shakespeare's Sister for more on the Senate's flag burning fever.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

If I drank the Kool-Aid

By Creature

More lies from the United Nations in attempt to undercut this administration and their noble cause in Iraq...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of displaced people in Iraq has swelled by 150,000 since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in February pushed the country to the brink of civil war, a United Nations agency said on Tuesday.

The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) put the number of displaced since late February higher than the 130,386 estimate of registered internal refugees given by the Ministry of Displacement and Migration on Monday.

Anyone ever stop to consider that these people may just be visiting relatives now that the country has been liberated. Why does the U.N. hate America?

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Like a bunch of two-year-olds

By Creature

Cry babies.

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

No, Mr. President, you are disgraceful.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Wrong again, Mr. President, you do great harm to America. [Creature jabs finger for emphasis] And you make it harder to win this war on terror.

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said.

Hey, wait a minute, I agree with you there, Mr. President. But how is making a run around Congress and the courts protecting our constitutional liberties? Your overreach is doing more damage to our liberties than any terrorist could have hoped for.

You all need to get off your high horses, this includes you Mr. Vice President, and admit you are more upset that the NYT disobeyed a direct order and exposed your illegal expansion of power, than you are over the disclosure of this program. You and your surrogates sound like a bunch of two-year-olds.

UPDATE: Right on cue Crook & Liars has video of this infantile GOP behavior. This clip is must see.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Delusional

By Creature

Sen. Santorum and Rep. Hoekstra are still talking WMDs. You would think after all the ridicule they endured last week, following their desperate explosive announcement that WMDs had been found in Iraq, that they would lay off the topic. No, they're not that smart. In today's Wall Street Journal they opine for further declassification of the intelligence report that brought us last week's old breaking news. But here's the funny, they think the president would like to declassify the rest, but because of the liberal-left, alas, he cannot. Poor president, his hands are tied.

The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information, but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of "cherry picking" and "politicizing intelligence." He may therefore not be inclined to act.

This is beyond delusional on the part of these two congressmen. If the real WMDs were found in Iraq, we would be seeing them paraded up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. Let it go guys, especially you, little Ricky; let it go. Life after politics will be okay. Think of all the time you'll have to spend doing fun things with your family...

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

Ricky, it's no wonder that Pennsylvania has turned against you.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

What would Edmund Burke say?

Will Britain break with tradition and adopt its very own U.S.-style bill of rights? Perhaps -- if Conservative Leader David Cameron has his way (if, that is, the Tories win back power from Labour and Cameron becomes PM).

It's an interesting proposal, and not necessarily a bad one. (At this late hour, that's the extent of my reaction. I'm sure I'll have more to say if it goes anywhere.)

Timetables

By Creature

Did the Iraq PM blink in the face of Bush administration pressure? First, here is today's news out of Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki offered an olive branch to insurgents who join in rebuilding Iraq and said Sunday that lawmakers should set a timeline for the Iraqi military and police to take control of security nationwide.

There was no mention of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in Iraq. [emphasis mine]

Now, just yesterday, this is how Newsweek (who obtained a draft of the prime minister's reconciliation plan) reported on the timetable debate:

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," [emphasis still mine]

So I ask you, did the sovereign government of Iraq fold under United States pressure and remove any direct timetable language from their reconciliation plane? Looks like it to me. And you know what's really sad? A timetable would help to lift some of the pressure off Prime Minister Maliki and his fledging government. A timetable would help Maliki in his dealing with the Sunni insurgents. A timetable would help him convince the country as a whole that there can be a face-saving end to the American occupation. The only group a timetable hurts, however, is the Bush administration and their rabid political base, who, for two weeks, used the concept of a timetable to beat the Democrats into the ground as cut-and-run cowards. Can't call for a timetable now. Why? Partisan politics and hubris.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a timetable really is a possibility. Says who? The Pentagon.

For more timetable and troop withdrawal talk, please follow these links to folks who are much more knowledgeable than I: Informed Comment, Needlenose, The Left Coaster (who took the words right out of my mouth as I was writing them, except much better), Greg Sargent, and the BooMan.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Is Jon Stewart bad for democracy?

Jon Stewart? Bad for democracy? Am I losing my mind?

At the Post, columnist Richard Morin points to a study by two East Carolina University political scientists which found that "young people who watch [The Daily Show] develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting".

College students. Those non-voting bums!

Now, there's a good deal wrong with the study — and I don't just say that as one of Stewart's most ardent fans. As Liz asks at BlondeSense: "[W]hat is wrong with American citizens being less trustful of their government and political candidates?… What is wrong with questioning our governments policies?"

Nothing. It's the American way, isn't it? Revolution may or may not be a good thing every now and then, but a healthy skepticism of government is a central democratic impulse. I'm sure Locke and the Founders would agree. Perhaps even Socrates would agree.

For more, see also Shakespeare's Sister. And Kevin Hayden at The American Street: "You know what the greatest disincentive for voting is? The way the Republicans rigged the vote in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere in the last two presidential elections. The whole electronic voting scam. Politicians that practice cronyism. Leaders who torture in our name… That’s not cynicism. That’s a broken political system."

And Gloria at The All Spin Zone, who counters this lame study (of which Morin is but the lame messenger) with some reporting of her own: "According to a study done by PA's Annenberg Election Survey, TDS viewers were the most informed viewers on the issues in 2004. Political knowledge has a direct effect on political choices. Young voters were John Kerry's strongest supporters and George W. Bush's most vocal detractors."

Of course, the anti-Stewart right buys the study completely. See, for example, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, who assumes, without anything to back up his assumption, that "people who [find] Jon Stewart hilarious [suffer] from a form of superficiality". He also claims that "reliance on satire and sarcasm alone requires little real courage, especially in a free society".

Has he even seen The Daily Show? If so, does he get it?

Jon Stewart is an educational satirist. In contrast to the news media, which often report the latest political spin without so much as an inkling of irony, Stewart educates us all — and not just the collegiate among us — in the ways of politics. For example, while the MSM will report on Cheney's latest remarks on Iraq, and do so virtually context-free, Stewart will juxtapose those remarks with previous, and often contradictory, remarks.

If some of Stewart's viewers turn into cynics, laughing at leaders who make fools of themselves, that's only because current political reality itself breeds such cynicism. How is it possible to look at what's going on at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and not become something of a cynic?

I would hope that many of Stewart's viewers don't stop and cynicism and do what they can to remake political reality, but I would much rather have America's young people, its first-time voters, understand American politics as it is rather than as the Republicans and their spin machine and the news media that report that spin as truth would have them understand it. I would rather have them turning away from the polls holding their noses than voting out of ignorance and fear.

Not voting is a political statement. Voting with knowledge of things as they really are is the essence of democratic responsibility. Jon Stewart puts his views on a path to knowledge and responsibility.

Jon Stewart is good for democracy.

Hypocrite

By Creature

The vice president just makes it too easy.

First Dick:

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. " That offends me."

Now me:

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that the vice president took it upon himself to disclose vital national security information, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent Iran from future attacks against the American people," Mr. Creature said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin."Mr. Vice President, you offends me."

Thank you, Mr. VP, for so clearly showing your hypocritical stripes.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Iraqi government declares state of emergency in Baghdad

Reality in Iraq is not always what it seems. Sometimes it's worse. Consider that highly sensitive cable sent from Ambassador Khalilzad to Secretary Rice, the one WaPo recently acquired and made public, the one that says that Iraqis who work for the U.S. in the Green Zone live in constant fear of being found out, the one that references abductions and ethnic cleansing.

Well, reality in Baghdad now includes a state of emergency and a curfew, as the AP reports here:

Iraq's government clamped a state of emergency on Baghdad and ordered everyone off the streets Friday after U.S. and Iraqi forces battled insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and rifles near the heavily fortified Green Zone.

This state of emergency will "continue for an indefinite period". It includes "a renewed prohibition on carrying weapons and [gives] Iraqi security forces broader arrest powers".

As Carla of Preemptive Karma puts it, "[t]he most tightly watched city in Iraq is barely under control". (See also Steve Soto at The Left Coaster and Michael Signer at Democracy Arsenal.)

But, hey, what's a state of emergency? What's a curfew? Just a number, maybe some sort of meaningless benchmark. Isn't that right, Tony Snow?

I'm sure everything's going superbly well over there. At least that's what the mouthpieces of delusion want us to believe.

Them misguided Dems: Iraq, the media, and the success of White House "happy talk"

About a week and a half ago, as some of you may remember, the Carpetbagger wrote about "the new media narrative," the one where "Bush and the GOP have momentum and are on the upswing". He argued that, in truth, there is no such "comeback" or "resurgence" for the Republicans.

I responded here at The Reaction, referring to "the shame of America's free press". What's going on here, I argued, is that the White House's "happy talk," the key communications element of Chief of Staff Josh Bolten's six-month campaign to resurrect the Bush presidency and Republican electoral fortunes, is working. The media, even major news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, are buying it. If they don't buy it, of course, they'll be tagged with the liberal label, which, given the success of Fox News and the influence of the right-wing spin machine, no one wants. Which is why they buy it. Or, at least, which is why they make every appearance of buying it.

And so, we are informed, Bush and the Republicans are back. Similarly, for the sake of "fairness" and "balance," we are informed that the Democrats don't have a plan. Democrats are divided, what with that crazy Dean guy running the DNC and the unstoppable Hillary out in front for '08 and Kerry bitterly sniping from his perch in the Senate and, well, all the other dysfunction that seems to be weighing down the party (which now probably also includes the Kos-TNR feud).

More than anything, though, it is Iraq that divides Democrats, and Democrats from the American people. At least according to the news media. At Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell outlines what the media are up to and why they're getting it all wrong:

The new efforts by Republicans in Congress, and in the media, to use Iraq to their advantage by branding Democrats as favoring a "cut-and-run'" policy, has received wide coverage in the past week. Often pundits, and even reporters, have suggested that this is working, because Americans are not in favor of a "hasty" withdrawal. Democrats are in shambles, they report, as they fear that proposals for setting a timetable for withdrawal put forward by Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Murtha will prove disastrous for the party in the November elections, due to the alleged unpopularity of this stance.

This conclusion, however, flies in the face of surveys by all major polling firms…

It's one thing when polls are dismissed, ignored or twisted by political or media spinmeisters. But when journalists in their news stories do it, it is downright misleading.

Misleading indeed. Which is precisely how Republicans win (and govern).

Bush and the Republicans get what they want from all this, which is the perception of a divided and largely ineffectual Democratic Party, justification for their disastrous Iraq policy, and an electorate, or at least a huge chunk of the electorate, that remains just ignorant enough, because misled by the "fair" and "balanced" news media, to mark an X next to the name of whatever candidates the GOP machinery upchucks onto a ballot.

I'm rarely one to join the blogospheric assault on the much-maligned MSM, but, more and more, I cannot help but be disturbed and enraged by its refusal to do its job properly. The shame continues.

**********

On a related note, I find this from Andrew Sullivan:

The Democrats, alas, seem hopeless to me. Their ambivalence about the war before and during it makes them seem unreliable stewards of a fight we have no choice but to join. Their flirtation with withdrawal only reinforces this impression. But they do have an opening, if they only had the conviction. If a Democratic candidate emerged who promised to stick to the Iraq war to victory, but conduct it in a more aggressive, ethical and competent way than the current crew, Americans would be more than receptive. Such a position would also help them expose the scandalous incompetence in the White House, while not being vulnerable to charges of defeatism. It won't happen, alas. And Rove will ruthlessly exploit the war for partisan gain, as he has from the beginning. He has no scruples. For him, national security is simply part of a political game. I should therefore break the news to my liberal and Democratic readers: Rove is winning this game for now. If you stick to your anti-war position, you are left with hoping for catastrophe, which a great political party should be above. Until the Democrats confront this, the rest of us are left with the hope of McCain - but not much else. Well: prayer, I guess.

I like Andrew quite a bit, not least for his condemnation of the use of torture and for his ardent support for same-sex marriage and other basic liberties, but I'm not with him here. Democrats have different views on what to do about Iraq, but they're not, I think, "hopeless". A parliamentary opposition party may need to stand united against the governing party, but in the American system the "opposition" party needn't coalesce uniformly around common policies until a presidential campaign (and perhaps not even then, given simultaneous races for different levels of government).

In addition, there must be some alternative to McCain or a McCain-style Democrat. With respect to Iraq, McCain is just a more competent and compelling Bush. That isn't the mean between the extremes of the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the "cut-and-run" inclinations of some on the anti-war side. While Cheney et al. continue to believe in their own infallible righteousness, as well as in the unwavering righteousness of their war, Democrats, in seems to me, are engaging in a healthy debate over what to do about a situation that has spiralled out of control. That isn't hopelessness, it's thoughtfulness. And it's what precedes effective and visionary leadership.

I have nothing but confidence that Democrats could be reliable stewards of American foreign policy — not just of the "fight" in Iraq but of troubles around the world, including Iran and North Korea. They should absolutely be given that opportunity once again.

(For more in response to Andrew's anti-withdrawal argument, see Kevin Drum.)

A case of genital mutilation in Kenya

Sometimes it's hard to know what to say. This horrific story out of Kenya is from the BBC:

Kenyan villagers have been shocked by the death of girl who bled to death after trying to perform female genital mutilation (FGM) on herself.

Pamela Kathambi did the procedure on her own because she was being teased by her friends for not being circumcised in the remote village of Irindi.

Her mother told the BBC that she had refused to allow her 15-year-old to be circumcised last year.

FGM is banned in Kenya, but remains common in some areas.

In some communities it is believed that circumcision will maintain a girl's honour and is part of a girl's initiation into womanhood.

What can I say? That I'm grateful to live in a country like Canada? That at least the girl's mother did the right thing? That, in the end, social/peer pressure won out? Regardless, this incident, surely not an isolated one, should remind us that providing aid — specifically related to sexual education and women's health care — to underdeveloped countries should be a priority for the developed West.

More overreach

By Creature

I know I would be a bad blogger if I didn't comment on the latest revelation of Bush administration overreach into our private lives, but I'm just finding it hard to find the words, or the outrage, this time around. By now you all know the details: 9/11 happened and Dick Cheney took it upon himself to turn the world upside down and inside out (war, illegal surveillance, you name it). Or, more specifically, he used 9/11, as the BooMan reminds us, "to take us back to a pre-Watergate situation where the intelligence agencies do whatever they want and Congress need not know boo about it." Fine, I'll be even more specific, this from today's NYT:

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

Whatever. Mind you, if I trusted the Bushes to stay within the law I would have no problem with this, but time and time again they have proven that the temptation to circumvent the law is just too great for them. Again, 9/11 was Cheney's wet dream, a gift with a bow on top that just keeps on giving. And why do I put all this law circumvention on his shoulders? Watch Frontline's The Dark Side, and then tell me it's not all about Dick.

Plus, I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the story behind the story. That being the Bush administration and the Right-wing nut-o-sphere having a conniption over the fact that the press ran with this story in the first place. It's a matter of national security, you know. Well, I do know, and you know what? The terrorists know too, and they knew before this morning that their money transfers were being monitored, so please get off your high national security horse already. And, if you're going to go nuts over the Times, then go nuts over the Wall Street Journal as well.

My fellow bloggers have more. Please stop by War and Piece, Shakespeare's Sister, Hullabaloo, The Heretik and Taylor Marsh.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Brief this

By Creature

Two items of note from yesterday's Pentagon press briefing on Iraq. First, and this is big news because such a public portrayal of Iranian influence can only mean one thing... Cheney and Rummy are itchin' for more war.

Iranian support for extremists inside Iraq has shown a "noticeable increase" this year, with Tehran's special forces providing weapons and bomb training to anti-U.S. groups, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday.

Other U.S. officials have complained about Iranian meddling in Iraq, but the criticism of Tehran by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was the most direct and explicit so far.

And this bit is not news, but it always amazes me that on our Iraq watch, this is allowed to continue.

Casey expressed confidence in the growing strength of the Iraqi army but voiced concern about the state of the Iraqi police, especially in the Baghdad area, where, he said, their operations are influenced by militias. Sunnis often accuse the police, who are controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, of working closely with Shiite death squads.

The emphasis is mine, because WTF? Death squads led by the government we are there to prop up. Again, not news, but how come when Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the terrorist fightin' crew running this war speak of Iraq they don't mention that we support our own version of terror. Shiite death squads. Thanks America, the world really is a safer place.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Should the U.S. bomb North Korea?

In yesterday's WaPo, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, both under Clinton, argue that "if North Korea persists in its launch preparations" — which I recently discussed here — "the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched".

Here's the core of their argument:

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy…

This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

It's a compelling case, and I recommend that you read it in full. And, upon reflection, I must say that I'm not necessarily against it. Which is to say, I'm not against taking the North Korean threat seriously. It is, after all, much more serious than any threat Saddam ever posed to U.S. interests leading up to the Iraq War (although he of course posed a serious threat before the Gulf War and the containment that followed). Indeed, my problem here isn't so much the use of force as it is the failure of the Bush Administration to engage North Korea in direct, one-on-one talks with respect to its nuclear program and possible efforts to find a suitable, mutually beneficial solution — conditional aid and trade, for example — to what has long been a crisis in the Far East.

But let's not rush into this. As Noah Shachtman of Defense Tech notes, there may not be a missile, let alone a test of any missile. And there certainly isn't much sense of what such a missile would be "capable of doing". Kevin Drum is similarly skeptical, as is Laura Rozen. See also Peter Howard at The Duck of Minerva, who wonders if North Korea isn't playing a game of "tit-for-tat" with the U.S., and The Heretik, who takes the policy of preemption to its logical conclusion and wonders if we haven't "finally lost it".

If nothing else, just consider the risks associated with such a preemptive strike. How would North Korea respond? Would it attack the South? Would it lob missiles at Japan? Would it now, or eventually, use its nuclear technology in some way against American interests? Is Kim's regime irrational? Or is it playing an escalating game of chicken? Is this a prelude to war or to diplomacy, negotiation, and some sort of "cold" peace?

What should the U.S. do about North Korea? There are no easy answers.

Santorum's spin on Iraqi WMD; or, what happens when desperation takes over

As Steve Benen noted the other day at The Carpetbagger Report (where I'm guest blogging yesterday through Sunday, with posts both here and there), Rick Santorum, arguably the Senate's most offensive member, still lags well behind his Democratic rival in Pennsylvania, Bob Casey. A recent poll puts the margin at 18 points. And Santorum's job approval rating stands at an anemic 38 percent.

Santorum must be desperate. Desperate to do something, anything, to narrow the margin. His very political career hangs in the balance. If he loses in November, he's through, likely for good. If he wins, his Clinton-like comeback will be celebrated in Republican circles and — who knows? — a Veep spot could be in the offing (or, eventually, perhaps even the top spot).

How do I know he's desperate? Consider the latest bit of evidence, his latest episode of rabble-rousing spin. Yesterday afternoon, Senator Santorum announced this: "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." Huge news, no? After all this, after all the fumbling and bumbling, the White House shilling and the indiscriminate killing, it may all have been worth it after all. For if Saddam really did possess WMD, if he really was such a threat not just to the Middle East but to America's national security itself, well, perhaps the exoneration of Bush can commence (with demands for mea culpas from Democrats, of course), perhaps the tide truly has turned, perhaps the GOP upsurge will begin and Republicans will re-embrace the Iraq War in earnest and sweep through the November elections, Democrats be eternally damned.

Or not.

Fox News, as expected, lapped up the story with characteristic glee, "fair" and "balanced" only with respect to its unabashed partisanship and shameful disregard for journalism. It's uncritical lede: "The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday."

Needless to say, the right-wing blogosphere has joined in. That sound you hear coming from that spin-struck echo chamber is a collective seizure of jubilation. (Captain) Ed Morrissey, for example, is calmer than most, but a tone of told-you-so righteousness peeks out from behind his post's thin veneer of wait-and-see optimism. And he's not alone. Glenn Reynolds thinks the WMD issue could now rebound on "war opponents". At Outside the Beltway, Chris Lawrence thinks that this discovery "further undermine[s] claims from the anti-war fringe that Iraq had declared and destroyed its stocks of non-conventional weaponry". (Uh, the "fringe"?) And so on and so on. Go check out Memeorandum for more of the same.

So what to make of this? Well, here's Powerline's John Hinderaker, who deviates from all this enthusiasm to throw in some healthy perspective:

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra.

Fair enough. Saddam had some, once upon a time, and he may have sought to acquire them once again, but he didn't have them before the second Gulf War, the Iraq War, and he certainly didn't have them in the way that the war's chief proponents — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the neocons, etc. — said he did. (Remember all those "mushroom cloud" comments?)

But this is really nothing more than Santorumnal (my neologism for today) grandstanding. And I can't put my response to this nonsense any better than the Maha of The Mahablog, Barbara O'Brien:

I keep reading, and find that this is not a new discovery, but an account of some stuff found in Iraq since May 2004. And it wasn’t exactly “500 chemical weapons,” as Fox News reported, but 500 chemical weapons shells. These shells contained old, degraded mustard OR sarin “nerve agents” dating from before the Gulf War, but for some reason nobody was interested enough to analyze the stuff to find out for sure what it was. The declassified document detailing the “discovery” — released by our old pal John Negroponte, note — is artfully vague about how much toxin was actually contained in the shells and what condition the toxin was in. Or even exactly what it was.

Apparently Rick Santorum, whose Senate career is in its final throes, got his hands on a classified document from the National Ground Intelligence Center. He pulled key points out of the document and had them declassified, and then made a big whoop-dee-doo announcement that he had in his hand proof that there were WMDs in Iraq…

As Barbara implies, Santorum is the new McCarthy. When all else fails — and it's all failing for the junior senator from Pennsylvania — pull a stunt like this. How stupid does he think we are? How stupid does he think the voters of his great state are? Pretty stupid, one must presume.

But such is what happens when desperation takes over. I expect little else from Santorum, not to mention from Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere, but it's all quite distasteful nonetheless.

Distasteful? It's pathetic. And it won't work.