The debate starts just as everyone wanted it to: Asking the chief challengers for criticism of Hillary. Pointedly, they ask how she’s voting like a Republican. I’m not sure if that’s meant to be an insult or a lure for the swing voters.

And it’s the most salient difference - and, arguably, the most salient issue of today - that they challenge her on: Why she broke from the Democratic herd to authorize censures and stronger military measures against Iran and its proxies. Unfortunately for all sides, almost no one’s up front. Hillary says that the measure doesn’t grant Bush anything approaching military power, whereas it does indeed. Everyone else says that Bush is threatening World War III - and technically, he was threatening the threat of World War III. Though I think Hillary’s not even on the same map of reality as everyone else - the one I, for the most part, share - Biden is the one who puts it best:

Bush is going to go into Iran whether it’s authorized or not, because right now, Congress has only served to legitimize or criticize the aggression already committed, as opposed to instituting formal restraints.

Edward cuts in and, parroting Biden to a large extent, makes good points about the war rhetoric. But as of now, we hear only the usual mantra - diplomacy, beware the White House, engage with sanctions and curtail terrorism abroad. All good advice, but a tune older than the Macarena, and so I tune out.

Then everybody is asked to pledge that Iran won’t get a nuke. This is the typical razor-wire trap question the moderators have loved to lay this year. Say “yes”, and they’ll be saying that you’re drafting plans to activate the Dr. Strangelove Doomsday Machine. Say “no” and you /are/ the weakest link; goodbye.

After the break, Hillary is asked about the letter from Bill to his Presidential library, asking that his communications with her during his time in office be kept from the public until 2012. She says that it’s not her place to say, but she wished they were released; too bad it’s not her call. Obama points out that this sort of duplicitous dissembling is more of the same Bushie BS.

He totally takes the initiative to slam Hillary for being shady, shifty, evasive and divisive - more of the same. And speaking of old habits that might die hard, Edwards brings up the rear, repeating what Obama said. He tacks on that she sucks money from the ample endowments of special interests.

Then the moderators ask how Obama’s experience applies to his qualifications. He says that his real expertise is bringing all the right people together to get things done. Considering his foreign policy writings are an articulate melange of both conservative and liberal thought - both Wesley Clark and Brent Scowcroft, Biden and Lugar - I would believe it. He also touts his consistency.

And then the gloves come off. Richardson lays into Obama and Edwards for being negative. Then Dodd takes a swing at everyone; they should be inclusive. Then Edwards pounces on Clinton again, saying if one isn’t critical of Clinton, they’re dooming the future to more of the same - you need to be negative about the parts of the past you don’t want if you’re going to get the future you do want.

Kucinich brings things to an icy crawl by saying everyone’s corrupt, and he’ll fight for the people by smashing NAFTA. There’s kind of an uncomfortable silence, as if he’d passed gas.

Biden livens things up by going after Giuliani, who he claims is utterly unqualified for the position of President. Considering the other resumes on the stage, or minds like Obama, Joe’s speaking to my concerns. My primary qualm with Rudy is that he seems fiercely short on any experience and somewhat out of his depth a lot of the time. And when Rudy has, in the past, shown lack of experience, he’s responded with heavy-handedness.

He argued that had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, it would now be facing two dangerous countries trying to become nuclear powers—Iraq and Iran.

“Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards’ new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out,” Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “Wouldn’t we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers.”

Considering the vapid line he’s expected to regurgitate when it comes to the war on terror, this is not a good habit for our Commander-in-Chief to have. If Giuliani truly believes the above, this is more worrisome than the opportunistic ambivalence shown by the Democrats.

Everyone’s asked about Social Security next. It’s like throwing meat to dogs - in this case, the rib-eye is George W. Bush and the bone in it is fiscal solvency. I’ll spare you the details. Suffice it to say that they’re very positive about Social Security’s future.

Then, before the break, Obama’s asked if he’s worried that people will confuse him with Osama bin Ladin. Obama does not seem concerned.

There will be a lightning round to follow, but this lightning’s going to be striking for the fifth, sixth, seventh time - nobody here has changed their tune. The surprises came for those who bothered to tune in early, and it’ll be cutesy-poo human interest queries to close. So we’ll do the lightning round at true lightning speed:

Green energy, diplomacy, humanism, social security, pro gay rights, military expansion, lower troop levels in combat zones, health care for all.

It’s no call to starting singing lines from Bye Bye Birdy, “Put On A Happy Face” about the overall course of things in Iraq, I know. And it’s not even sure to last, what with al-Qaeda getting “resurgent” - or, as I prefer to call it, “frisky” - again. But like the nice young gentleman in the clean white collar shirt, tie and backpack said to me before making the sign of the cross and fleeing at the sight of my apartment, “I’ve got to spread the Good News.”

October had the lowest number of US military fatalities in Iraq since March of 2006 - third lowest in the entire war - with 37 soldiers killed.

It is the lowest number since 32 troops died in March 2006 and the second-lowest since 20 troop deaths in February 2004, according to an Associated Press count based on military figures.

That would be the second consecutive drop in monthly figures, after 65 Americans died in September and 84 in August.

This unqualified good - and unqualified success for the warriors on the ground - merited a post of its own.

For a place with car bombs going off and all-out running gun battles raging through neighborhood malls, Iraq has been quiet of late. Too quiet. One almost got the sense that allowing the military to do things right, with as much resources available as can be mustered, was working. A tactical flub that led to the abduction of Sunni and Shiite sheikhs united against al-Qaeda by some pot-stirring rogues in the Mahdi Army even resolved well - or well enough, with only one corpse.

Then came two items in this weekend news that remind us that the political handling of this war will never fail to beggar belief. And so I invite you, my loyal readership, to review the latest in a series that could aptly be called, “Shock and Argh” or, more to the point, “What The Fuck Could These People Be Thinking?”

First, to our latest answer in how to resolve the political and economic tangle of Iraq: Ahmed Chalabi.

For those of you not gasping or hanging your heads, I’ll fill you in on who Ahmed Chalabi, who was just appointed by Nouri al-Maliki to run “a consortium of eight service ministries and two Baghdad municipal posts”, is. Chalabi helped the Coalition Provisional Authority run the show back in those halcyon days of 2003, helping with various policy triumphs like disbanding the Iraqi Army and insinuating graft and thievery throughout the ministries. And before he helped the Iraqis towards his vision of a better future, he gave the US a crucial nudge as well:

Chalabi, in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 , provided White House and Pentagon officials and journalists with a stream of bogus or exaggerated intelligence about Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to terrorism. He also suggested that he’d lead Iraq to make peace with Israel and welcome permanent U.S. military bases, which could apply pressure to Iran and Syria.

Hence my initial reaction to the idea of giving this clown any degree of oversight over some of the most critical aspects of Iraqi civil society that he already stripped and bilked in ‘03: They cannot possibly be serious.

But no, they are, and we’re backing them. The logic is that the person in Chalabi’s position can galvanize the areas of government that are traditionally most dependent on the central government’s control - water and power, sanitation, education - while the local tribal leaders and provincial captains can swing the rest. Fine idea so far. So why on earth would one appoint Chalabi?

Considering that Maliki best can answer that, given that he appointed him, the question then becomes the one I’ve been asking incessantly for nearly a year now: Why on earth are we putting up with Maliki?

The second article this weekend banishes any notion that we’re doing it out of some idea of respect for Iraqi sovereignty. PR is a possibility, yes, but not sovereignty, for it was just revealed that not only did the State Department whitewash the Blackwater shootings of last month - they literally granted the Blackwater people involved legal immunity.

The stated reason why makes it even more of an Orwellian doublethink knee-slapper - and I’m sure all those hearts and minds out in Mesopotamia, debating between picking up an American flag or a black skimask and an RPG, will be rolling in the aisles. The reason why the Blackwater contractors involved were given immunity from prosecution is so that the State Department could find out just what happened, and if it was criminal.

“Once you give immunity, you can’t take it away,” said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.

Three senior law enforcement officials said all the Blackwater bodyguards involved — both in the vehicle convoy and in at least two helicopters above — were given the legal protections as investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security sought to find out what happened. The bureau is an arm of the State Department.

Kafka is rolling in his grave with Camus. Are we actually supposed to buy that the investigators of a possible criminal incident have to give the criminals immunity in order to build a case? I understand this kind of thing happens with mob informants, but somehow I doubt that the object is to stick Blackwater CEO Erik Prince in Al Capone’s cell. Even those Americans who get their knowledge of the legal system from TV’s “Law & Order” get that you don’t grant the murderer immunity for the murder so that you can find him guilty of it.

We may as well just have Condi get in front of the mike and soberly state, “To the other nations of the world, don’t expect to hold us accountable to any wrongdoing. Uncle Sam don’t play that.” After all, will the Iraqis get any other message? Will they get the smallest measure of justice?

Guess they’ll just have to settle with Ahmed Chalabi.

Freedom of speech sometimes sucks. I wouldn’t trade it for the world - in fact, it’s when it sucks that you know it’s working. But the example being set by the Westboro Baptist church, one of the groups that cheers the deaths of American soldiers at their own funerals in order to object to the country’s tolerance towards homosexuals, is a particularly stomach-turning example of our values’ success. Finally, someone is trying to strike back hard: The father of a fallen Marine is suing the church.

The church’s protests have inspired several state laws and a federal law about funeral protests, but the Maryland suit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

Asked Wednesday about a sign that read “Thank God for dead soldiers,” Snyder said he thinks about it daily.

“I see that sign when I lay in bed,” Snyder said.

Asked about statements issued by the group that his son was raised to support the “Roman Catholic monstrosity” and then sent to fight for the “United States of Sodomy,” Snyder said “they have no right to do this to people they didn’t know.”

Fortunately for our land of the free, they do have a right. And, even more fortunately, Mr. Snyder has a good chance at fighting back such that these monstrous bastards feel it. Someone has to teach them a lesson that doesn’t just bruise, but breaks bone. Their campaign is an exercise of hatred, for hatred’s cause. Say what one will about the titular population of Ann Coulter’s “Godless”, but you won’t see agnostics and the multi-culti cheering dead troops because America doesn’t punish consenting adults from expressing affection in an unpopular way. I was no fan of the adolescently extreme action of the shit-flinging war protestors in the Vietnam era, but I at least can understand getting indignant about one’s country sauteeing civilian targets in napalm. Breaking the hearts of those who’ve sacrificed their all because you believe butt-sex will send a sinner into a lake of eternal fire? It’s beyond sanity.

Still, we will allow crazies their street corners to scream from. So long as they’re properly zoned. And in our great democracy, where everyone has a voice and they who shout loudest wins, I hope that this lawsuit ends up getting its voice. Several million dollars of damages can be pretty loud.

Anxiety-related illnesses are spiking all over our nervous nation, with insomnia now joining the ranks of obesity, hypertension and the popularity of reality TV shows. What’s got everyone staying up so late to bite their nails?

Forty-eight percent of Americans say they’re more stressed now than they were five years ago, and the same percent report regularly lying awake at night because of stress, according to a new study by the American Psychological Association.

…So what is it we’re worrying about while we stare at the ceiling all night? Primarily two things: money and work, the main woes for nearly 75 percent of Americans. That’s way up from 59 percent of us stressed out over those two things a year ago.

Perhaps not surprisingly, that percentage of the population correlates well with the segment that has had their standard of living dive in this “boom” economy. Yet immediate, personal concerns set aside, it’s hard to ignore the aggravation of worsening environmental factors. Five years ago, we were not yet in Iraq, not yet dreading global warming, even though we were - universally - in a post-9/11-and-government-defecit-inspired economic slump.

Even our Vice-Commander-In-Chief, Dick Cheney, seems to be afflicted by disturbed sleep patterns. Listening to the boring account of the record wildfires in California, he nodded off on camera.

What could be depriving the penultimate leader of the free world of his necessary rest? Answers to that are in the headlines, and are most thoroughly explored in a New Yorker article this month by Seymour Hersh, “Shifting Targets“. In one ominous word, Cheney’s burly boogeyman is, “Iran”:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

As anybody listening to the race can tell you, most every leading Democrat supports a military option to limit Iran’s nuclear program. But apparently that either doesn’t pass muster with Cheney or doesn’t affect his feeling that it’s the current administration alone that would be - and thus must be - aggressive enough to launch or support a pre-emptive military strike on an Iranian nuclear program.

If I could take Mr. Cheney by the hand, I would sit him down and soothe him by mention of Mitt Romney. Romney is now leading significantly in New Hampshire, finally stirring that conservative base that he’s so ruthlessly courted by antics like throwing his pal Larry Craig under a speeding bus of moral judgment, declaring himself born-again Pro-Life and overall being a prudish prick whenever possible. Should Romney knock noggins with fellow frontrunner Clinton, chances are he could snap her over-moneyed, under-spined support and pull off a victory. And where would that put him so far as pushing the Big Red Button against Iran is concerned?

Romney, who has been advocating a hard line against Iran throughout his presidential campaign, said military action would be necessary if severe economic and diplomatic sanctions don’t convince Iranian leaders to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

“If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that’s available to us,” Romney told a crowd of doctors and nurses during a question period that followed a health care speech.

He added: “That’s an option that’s on the table. And it’s is not something which we’ll spell out specifically. I really can’t lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options from blockade to bombardment of some kind. And that’s something we very much have to keep on the table, and we will ready ourselves to be able to take, because, frankly, I think it’s unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

Doesn’t that sound butch enough? Perhaps not for Cheney, who has been fiercely at odds with a CIA that insists on downplaying Iran as even a potential threat. Cheney sees the Iranian nuclear weapon capability as a certainty, and thus sees America pre-emptively attacking it as a quid pro quo.

Given this, expect to stay glued to your television sets this spring, to watch a new round of pretty lights liven things up in the Middle East.

New revelations on the September 6th bombing of a target in Syria by the Israeli Air Force make it increasingly unlikely that my assumption that it was solely an exercise against Iran was true. Photos of the bombed site, analyzed by strategic think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, indicate that the site’s wreckage resembles that of a North Korean style nuclear reactor.

“If the facility is confirmed as the site of the attack, the photos provide a potential explanation for Israel’s middle-of-the-night bombing raid.

The facility is located seven miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah, in the Dayr az Zawr region, and about 90 miles from the Iraqi border, according to the ISIS report to be released today. [David] Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the size of the structures suggested that Syria might have been building a gas-graphite reactor of about 20 to 25 megawatts of heat, similar to the reactor North Korea built at Yongbyon.

“I’m pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor,” Albright said in an interview. He said the project would represent a significant departure from past policies. ISIS, a nonprofit research group, tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world.”

There’s all the reason in the world for Syria to acquire nukes, as I’ve noted before. With Israel armed with nukes and Iran moving toward some manner of nuclear power, simply relying on its extensive chemical weapons program would make Syria seem like it was bringing a knife to a gunfight. On the other hand, it invites more incidents like those on the 6th of September.

In closing about this follow-up, it bears noting that I disagree with the comments of Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, when he said:

“ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation.

“When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein’s research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground,” he said. “The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem.”

And indeed, it doesn’t deal with the roots of the problem, but it is an effective measure. And, furthermore, as for it incentivizing secrecy, secrecy is already thoroughly incentivized - hence this site in Syria being a possibility, not a certainty, and hence Syria having been so shady abouts its construction. Yes, it will mean Syria will have to be even more secretive, but if they’re not going to be upfront about things in the first place, there’s little call to support the IAEA’s argument that the Israeli strike somehow steered Syria away from a path to full disclosure about their unsafe, unstable, clearly-weapon-oriented nuclear site.

While we wait for the Turkish Army to actually cross the border, another kind of Turkey attack plagues a United States consumed by the tragic but exceedingly boring news of the California wild fires:

On a recent afternoon, Kettly Jean-Felix parked her car on Beacon Street in Brookline, fed the parking meter, wheeled around to go to the optician and came face to face with a wild turkey.

The turkey eyed Jean-Felix. Jean-Felix eyed the turkey. It gobbled. She gasped. Then the turkey proceeded to follow the Dorchester woman over the Green Line train tracks, across the street, through traffic, and all the way down the block, pecking at her backside as she went.

“This is so scary,” Jean-Felix said, finally taking refuge inside Cambridge Eye Doctors in Brookline’s bustling Washington Square. “I cannot explain it.” {emphasis mine}

Yes, apparently the turkey population of Massachusetts is on the counterattack. No longer content to be the butt of jokes or the pride of the Thanksgiving table, Turkeys have crossed the concrete border into our suburbs and have taken the fight to our streets. Now these inveterately idiotic birds will be throwing their swollen weight at the backsides of soccer moms all over the exurbs. It seems the marauding gobblers have no decency, even considering the most vulnerable of the civilian population a viable target:

“…they’re afraid of the turkeys around their children. They don’t know what they’ll do.”

My advice? Yell really loud. Turkeys are actually stupid and tender enough to perish from fright at that. You can wipe out a whole empty-noggined mob with a good yell, as even the turkeys not floored by your bellow will drop dead from the horror of seeing their companions keeling over. Failing this, kick the bejeesus out of the bird. This too may frighten it.

More problematic is the invasion of Iraq by Turkey, which seems inevitable. Kurdish terrorists just yesterday grabbed eight Turkish soldiers, and shot up a whole unit the day before, killing twelve. This, after the Prime Minister, the parliament /and/ the military have all said they’re going to go. At this point, it really has become the military equivalent of “the Minnesota long goodbye” - that miasmal ten to sixty minute period of time between when Minnesotans rise to leave and when they actually part company, usually spent talking about the good time just had and the good times to come in the most pallid language.

Then again, if Iraq has shown us anything, it is that you can’t rush a quality invasion. Turkey is amassing no less than an Army Corps to put the big boot to the PKK pests. That takes no small amount of time to assemble, and is not likely to back down when it’s arrived.

And yet, then again, again, if this news week has shown us anything, it’s that the only thing you can truly expect is weirdness.

While the American Executive bangs its collective shoe over the phantasmal threat of an Iranian nuclear holocaust, real disasters are taking place in Iraq’s Shiite south that Iran is, most likely, actually involved in. Sectarian violence has literally taken on a new dimension now that the British have scaled down their presence dramatically - Shi’a militias are erupting in an orgy of internal warfare to determine who among them is in charge.

This is a big event that most media won’t be partial to giving play - the south has always been regarded as almost a separate country, considering it was largely a British responsibility, and so it doesn’t quite fit in the “slow and steady decline” story many are crafting for the Iraq War. It is significant for a number of reasons. The human toll is ghastly, adding another catastrophe to the long list in Iraq. The toll on our strategy will be severe as well, as this upheaval spreads and we are forced to tangle with it. And, perhaps most importantly, it answers the question, “How much worse could it get if we leave?”

Many critics of staying in Iraq have argued that the civil war is already in full swing. Many were ignored for far too long. However, now that they’re getting more time in the spotlight, their argument is that the degree to which the American presence worsens the chaos is greater than the degree to which it limits it. In essence, “it can’t get all that worse.”

The situation in the southern regions of Basra and Diwaniyah tragically prove this theory wrong. As a TIME article on the subject describes:

Amid reports of mounting Shi’a infighting there, officials in the Southern city of Diwaniyah, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, say that not only Iran but other neighboring countries in the Gulf may be involved in stoking the violence. Two incidents this week have ratcheted up their concern. On Wednesday, seven Iraqi police officers were killed by a bomb in the nearby village of Afak. That followed bloodshed on Monday, when at least six civilians were killed and dozens wounded in a mortar barrage on the Polish-run Coalition base in town.

Such spectacular incidents overshadow the almost daily clashes between the rival Shi’ite militias that inevitably kill and maim civilians. Diwaniyah now nearly rivals Basra as a vicious free-for-all in the growing civil war among the Shi’a. While none of the recent fighting can be directly linked to any outside group, local security officials say that they can now add to the list of troublemakers elements of al-Qaeda and other Sunni Arab fighters, who appear to be taking advantage of the chaos to regain a toehold in the region and accelerate the flow of Shi’a blood.

Here we have all the elements of “worse” that comes with the departure of the occupier: Militias now aligned against a common foe begin to fight amongst themselves. Rival sects step in, even resurrecting themselves - as in the case of al-Qaeda - or returning from where they were driven out to - as with the Sunni - to take advantage of the situation. Then outside powers - namely Saudi Arabia and Iran - step in to make money off of the chaos, make contacts and further the aims of their foreign policy. It’s a whole reeking stew of death. What we have now is a separation of these elements into surly but stalemated sectarian lines. Remove those lines, and we’ll see Iraq’s woes multiplied, proving that the whole of those colliding forces is far worse than merely the sum of their parts.

The solution to this debacle is seldom as clear as it’s problems, but we would be wrong to be discouraged in seeking it. For years, war critics were marginalized as political hacks, pacifists or pessimists. Now that they’ve been passed the mike and given the spotlight, some return the favor. They ask, in the same breath as “how much worse could it get?”, “the supporters of staying in Iraq were wrong for five years - why should we believe them now when they predict doom?”

And the answer to this is the answer at the core of all the woes around the Iraq war: Because prevailing evidence and critical thinking trump politics. The Bush White House wanted to believe they could conquer the world on the cheap and pad some friends’ pockets in the process, even though all the evidence said otherwise. Now the evidence is that Iraq would, indeed, be a far, far worse bloodbath and regional disaster without occupation holding its straining seams together. And just as we see in the Shi’a south what could come for all of Iraq, we need to look in ourselves to see if we’ve learned that political convenience mustn’t blind us to real consequences.

If we keep that in mind, we can at least decide clearly: Do we use the bodies of Americans to staunch and soak up Iraqi blood, hoping the wound will scab? Or do we leave, sad and stained with gore spent in a venture that could, in years to come, visit on us the worst blowback in our nation’s history?

It’s now all but official: We’re going to attack Iran in the not-too-distant future. That’s what President Bush indicated this morning in an address to the world: With Orwellian doublethink logic - the same that goaded the country into Iraq - the President’s argument went that in order to prevent World War III, we would have to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons at any cost, even by going to war.

“We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” he said. “So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

So the premise is that in order to prevent disastrously widening the war on their terms, we best widen it first. Setting that dangerous policy aside for a moment, it takes a lot of hostile assumptions to get to Bush’s perspective at all.

The first assumption is an easy one, considering the media is parroting it loudly and incessantly: The assertion that Ahmadinejad wants to turn Israel into a seething nuclear soup. That’s a misunderstanding, and not a minor one - not a “shrug your shoulders”, “what’s the difference” mistranslation. It’s that little distinction between accusing him of advocating anti-Semitic genocide and advocating a position even some Israeli parliament members support: Namely, Ahmadinejad’s position is not “wiping Israel from the map” with some impossible shower of IRBMs he does not and will never have - it’s that Arabs in Israel should be given voting rights and should then force a referendum to how Israel should be constituted: As a segregated Jewish state with a non-voting population or not.

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

Even taking that into consideration though, we see that Mahmoud is no friend to the ADL and Likud Party. There’s no doubt that Iran considers its chief rival in the region to be Israel, and vice versa. But to get to where President Bush wants people to go takes a further assumption - namely, that Iran’s building a nuclear weapon.

Iran certainly has incentive to do so. After all, Israel - which attacks without warning or recompense - has nuclear weapons. Being “the other nuclear armed state” would give it clout, which it certainly wants. And, lastly, as North Korea has proven, once you have nukes, you can do practically anything you want, even extorting the US. But just how close is Iran to getting one of these bad boys?

We’ll mark off the steps. First, they need a nuclear plant. That’s allegedly where they want to start - getting a nuclear plant to overcome their sole, crippling energy concern: That even though they have lots of oil, they have few means to refine it, and so are suffering the same energy crisis as any other nation that’s not weathly nearly beyond measure. Once they have the plant, they need to equip it with the means of producing weapons-grade fissionable material. After that’s done, they need a bomb program. And once, at last, they have a bomb - mind you, this would take several years - they need to get the delivery systems. This entire process is extremely expensive in terms of treasure and time.

“Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community,” ElBaradei said in an interview with Italian RAI television. The IAEA director called for international leaders to “give peace a chance,” underlining that no hidden radioactive substances or underground production sites had yet been found. However, he admitted: “Iran has not yet completely revealed all the aspects of its nuclear programme.”

Here we are again: The IAEA urges peace and says the threat’s ages away, and Bush and other Western leaders act as though a gun’s to our head with the hammer cocked. And most importantly, as with Saddam’s WMD program, just about every intelligence source without bias doubts the claims that Iran’s doing this. The only reason America believes this is what’s going on is because the White House has been saying, over and over and over, that this is the case. So while, for the reasons above, it’s not entirely unreasonable to say that Iran may want such a program, we are not nearly at the crisis point the Administration wants to put us at. As with Saddam’s “smoking gun”, it’s a matter of the President and his cadre insisting on something only they and a few others are supposedly convinced of, for reasons that are in no way immediately important beyond furthering their political doctrine.

This brings us to the last assumption we must make in order to accept - as many frightened Americans will - the perspective Bush spoke from this morning. We’ve covered that Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to annihilate all Jews in a fiery blast. We’ve covered that we’re years, billions and a whole of wariness away from even a potential fiery blast. The final assumption is that any of those conditions would leave to World War III.

Even if Ahmadinejad wanted to incinerate Israel, why would he do so when suicide would be the result? Does anyone have a doubt that an attack against Israel or the US - especially one with nuclear weapons - would lead to anything else besides Iran’s total devastation by our nuclear arsenal? Even if Iran was stone nuts enough to do it, that “war” would be a very brief exchange indeed - about the time it would take for two fistfuls of Titan class ICBMs to travel from silos in the southeast seaboard to Tehran.

No, the real World War III would have to involve the world - and that would not be too far fetched. Bush has already led us from the rosy glow of liberalist 9/11-era global sympathy - back when Iranians wept on America’s behalf, terrorism was a law-enforcement issue, the world thought us unbeatable and Russia was declawed by the disarmament process - to an era where our nation is loved but our politics are almost universally despised. The ABM Treaty is gone, our war chest and military reserves are gone, and Russia is resurgent, shaking hands with Mahmoud and stomping its feet on Serbia’s behalf again. For an actual world war, we are busily brewing a lot of the proper ingredients.

Avoiding World War III should concern us. And unilateral action, overstating threats, twisting rhetoric to the end of terrorizing the public and fomenting fear of another pre-emptive war abroad is just the opposite of “avoiding.”

It may seem hard, at a glance, to figure which is the more ridiculous headline: That a soldier’s mother shipped 80,000 cans of silly string to Iraq or that Libya and Vietnam won seats on the UN Security Council. But given that the answer for the silly string question came to mind quickly with some consideration and has a practical purpose - it can detect trip wires - the winner in this one is clear.

Yes, it’s true, Libya and Vietnam are going to be on the Security Council. The madcap North African upstart with the account number of nearly every terrorist cell in the world and the runt of successful Asian totalitarian Commu-capitalists are going to have a major say in why, where and how the United Nations deploys its military forces.

Libya was virtually assured of election because it has been endorsed by the African group along with Burkina Faso and faced no opposition. Vietnam, which was endorsed by the Asian group, also ran unopposed. All three countries won in the first round of voting.

Now, granted, they’re not the only tarnished records to ever fill one of the esteemed 2-year positions that rotate on the Council - the Dominican Republic was also in the race this go-around. And of course the argument for internationalism is that you want your enemies at the table so that you can look them in the eye when you interact, turning them into friends or at least getting the best intel possible. But this goes too far - invite them into your parlor, by all means, but your war room?

Furthermore, these two states are actively up to no good. It’s not like they’ve abandoned sordid pasts in order for the more palatable way of low-intensity oppression and robber baron capitalism. Vietnam by all indications still uses slave labor, and Libya just pulled off a colossal hostage scam, to the tune of exclusive French-guided European contracts and hundreds of millions of dollars. You don’t want to give these people any real say in whether or not the rogue states of the globe are going to be punished, as they are rogue states themselves.

There’s a time and a place for unity. There’s a time and a place for chances at redemption. But the chief international authority for lawful use of force is not one of them.

Until Libya and Vietnam cease to be dependent on breaking the rules, they should not sit among those that make them.

Turkey’s government is once again being crushed between Iraq and the hard place of pressure from the west. The attacks on Turkey by the relentless PKK - Kurdish rebels in Turkey with contentious but nevertheless real ties with the ruling Kurdish party in Iraq - have its citizens rightly demanding those responsible be pursued into Iraq and neutralized. The US - which has always regarded Kurdish Iraq as a model of stability in a crucible of strife - has rightly demanded Turkey not make the situation more chaotic by invading. Both sides have good, urgent arguments, but only one can prevail. Which is the right course?

It may surprise some to hear that neither case will be a disaster if handled well, and that both have their merits. If anything, Turkish intervention would have some positives to it that have been lacking from the Iraq War:

First, it would be a Muslim nation involved in fighting terrorism in Iraq. This is something that is long overdue - the view of the world being that Iraq is a western, Christian crusade to institute a vassal state in Islam’s backyard. If Turkey comes in on the side of battling terror, it looks less like a White House delusion.

Secondly, Turkey has significant amounts of troops to devote to this task and, without Saddam to worry about, might actually stand to wipe out the PKK. Whatever the case, al-Qaeda’s use of Kurdistan’s bandit kingdom as a refuge from the surge will be further abbreviated and the thorn of the PKK could be plucked from the common side of Turkey, the Iraqi parliament and the US. Considering how shoe-string troop counts are in Iraq, why not welcome in the second-largest NATO army?

The answer to that brings us to the negatives of a Turkish intervention - the first being that the roads Turkey’s 50,000+ troops will be tromping down will be no longer available to our own effort. It would be a logistical constriction for our military and would add to the confusion Iraq already suffers. This would be especially true if the Turkish military holds to its word, as it has said:

Cicek said Turkey’s sole target, if its troops entered northern Iraq, would be the PKK militants, about 3,000 of whom are believed to be hiding there.

Combating any and all terrorist elements in the tangled web of mercenary northern Iraq is much more realistic and achievable than trying to sift out Kurdish Maoist Nationalists from All-Use Religious Fanatic Al-Qaeda Fighters. These groups hardly share the same bed, but outlaws are outlaws, arms traders are arms traders, and ducking one group while hunting the other will not be easy. It will also mean we and the Turks will have to be careful not to trip over one another, rather than aim to work together.

Turkish intervention is one heavy, edged pendulum, and could certainly swing either way - good or ill. It’s up to the US to encourage cooperation with our NATO ally if they feel that they’re forced to step in, rather to ignore or hinder it for the sake of the Iraqi government. For, regardless of the potential ill of the intervention, this much is certain: Security for that sector can’t be left in the hands of Baghdad. When Turkey last seriously considered stepping over that brittle border, the US defused the situation by having the Iraqi goverment sign a commitment to break the back of the PKK. Absolutely nothing came of it.

And yet the response from Washington last week was merely more of the same:

“PKK violence not only threatens Turkey, but also undermines the security and welfare of Iraq,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement issued Monday evening. “Turkey and Iraq have vowed to collaborate in the fight against terrorism … We call on Iraqi authorities to take effective measures against the PKK.”

It seems a situation where again we are getting the back of the Iraqis and again they cannot measure up to what’s demanded of them. Considering car bombings still shiver Baghdad with regularity and al-Qaeda is not yet entirely contained - not to mention the larger threat of sectarian insurgents - how can we expect the Iraqi security forces to deal with the PKK, one of the largest terrorist factions in the world? Put simply, we can’t - not at this point.

Asking Turkey to wait extends this situation at the expense of Turkish lives, which the PKK are not loath to take en masse. Allowing Turkey to intervene means risking a much greater destabilization. But with the region already being destablized as the PKK opens its attacks against Iran and Iran lashes back. Waiting while the Iraqis get their act together under the miserable leadership of the Dawah party may not be an option for long.

And Washington may soon find itself in a sandwich of its own - having to decide whether it wants a NATO partner with an Army larger than any other hunting terrorists in Iraq, or Iran.

It is sometimes easy to do the right thing at the right time; it is a different thing altogether to do the right thing when it’s the wrong time, the inconvenient time, the hard time. The notion of sacrificing for one’s values is the foundation of proving one’s values. From the classic example of Abraham and Isaac, to the modern famous figures of Pat Tillman and Rachel Corrie, it’s when values are held to be more important than one’s life that they take on the aura of immortality. Now the Congress has another opportunity to prove that America’s values of declaring for human rights conquer convenience and transcend the concerns of the moment.

This opportunity is a measure recognizing the Armenian Genocide - the massacre and expulsion of up to 1.5 million Armenians, and at least 300,000 Armenians, by the Ottoman Empire, predecessor to the modern state of Turkey. Just to be clear, recognizing this genocide isn’t like believing in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: It is well-documented, with some survivors around to this very day, and has been acknowledged as a genocide by most of the civilized world. Despite its obviousness, the USA has consistently refused to call it a genocide.

The reason why is because Turkey might, under some international law, be held responsible for the human rights violations. This may mean, at least on a small scale, reparations. It would certainly mean greater - and due - attention paid to their ancestor’s barbarities. And Turkey is, in the words of President Bush, a vital ally:

“This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror,” Bush said at the White House before the vote.

The bulk of supplies for troops in Iraq pass through Turkey’s Incirlik airbase, and Turkey provides thousands of truck drivers and other workers for U.S. operations in Iraq. Supplies also flow from that base to troops in Afghanistan.

As a consequence, all resolutions for the USA to officially recognize the genocide have been killed by Republican-dominated Congresses. Now, with the Democrats in charge, the measure goes to a vote. It seems an intriguing coincidence that Turkey, just yesterday, resumed talking about their military invading northern Iraq.

This is undoubtedly a hard time to stand for our principles - that we will not hesitate to confront injustice with censure. It is most likely that, as I noted in my remarks about Ahmadinejad, speaking with civility and candor will not lead to greater conflict, but towards resolving it. Still, the possibility that Turkey will be provoked to incendiary activity in this potentially explosive region remains.

We should set that concern aside. We need to be ready to abandon comfort for principle, not principle for comfort. We expect it of our troops abroad. We should give them no less in return.

It used to be that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility, but recent years make this GOP debate on how best to manage the economy seem like a commentary by an ADD eight-year-old with a sweet-tooth on how to protect the cookie jar. Nevertheless, a lot of those taking the stage today have solid budget direction credibility - Giuliani and Romney principally. And best of all, the Big White Hope of the GOP is finally emerging from the wings: Fred Thompson at last leaps into the scrum.

Here, we’ll blog their debate live.

Straight Tax On Flat Taxes

The various candidates begin with a quick carousel about their proposed changes to the tax code.

Huckabee advocates elimination of income tax for the sake of a sales tax, so as to gain more revenue, incentivize domestic productivity and throttle the “underground economy.”

Brownback and Tancredo flat out eliminate federal taxation in its current form. They then use the rest of the time to criticize spending in Washington. This is simply not an impressive tact to take - no more so than when Hillary insists that Social Security is going to be saved by a balanced budget, and then the rest will fall into place. It ignores the real demands of modern, socialized civil society in America - people like their spending, just as they like cheap designer clothes, cheap beef, cheap gourmet coffee, cheap war. These things don’t just pay for themselves, nor will people accept them drying up or vanishing.

Romney and Giuliani then spar over their past records, with Rudy saying he slashed taxes and spending while Romney let his rise. Romney did, in fact, try to limit spending and taxes, but in Massachusetts, that’s like trying to stop a flood with your pockets. Romney ends up just looking like he’s floating, nothing really to hold onto, for Giuliani has him in a corner. He tries to make ground by switching the subject to a line-item veto, but Giuliani takes the steam out of his sidetrack by snatching the man’s platform from him: He claims Romney’s conception of a line-item veto is unconstitutional, but that he favors a lawful use of one.

The blood’s still drying on the canvas as we hop to the next topic.

Free Market Blues

Fred comes to the fore. He’s asked if he’ll protect against outsourcing. After some burly rhetoric about how super-duper the American economy is, he says he won’t protect anybody’s jobs from being cut - that’s not free market.

He may as well have pointed right at his hamstrings and turned his back, as Duncan Hunter lays into Fred by saying that the President must not be against the Free Market here, but can sure as shoot tariff the Chinese to a more favorable trade position. This wins points from the peanut gallery, and applause explodes.

McCain says the issue’s about rampant, bloated spending in the federal budget. Then Tancredo says our anemic economy is due to immigration, sapping our services while raiding the larder of low-income jobs. Recent raids haven’t really proved the whole “swarthy folk are stealing the white man’s jobs” argument, considering that farmers are now puling about food rotting in the fields due to lack of someone to pick them due to immigration crackdowns.

It’s about now that I realize these questions aren’t “questions” per se, but prompts for whatever talking points the candidates need to fire off.

Lock Up Your Stevedores

Rudy is asked about whether, under his administration, the recent spate of denying other countries’ companies control of American services with possible national security implications - namely, the ports and oil owned by Dubai and China.

He rambles about how we need to encourage American exports by redrawing trade agreements. Again, I can just see the barricades going up in the center of the country when Wal*Mart has to sell sweatshirts for a minimum of $45. His ducking the question doesn’t work, and eventually he’s nailed to the wall with the direct inquiry, “Would you allow Dubai to own 20% of NASDAQ?”

He says he would, provided they pass security checks. Ron Paul agrees. McCain calls bullshit on the whole preferrential trade agreements line, saying that protective tariffs had never worked. He then signs on for free trade allowing the Dubai to own 20% of NASDAQ. Fred agrees, rathering droningly.

Hunter slams on the brakes to halt this rare moment of multi-culti lovefest with his big ol’ xenophobic leg, saying he wouldn’t let Dubai own any large interest in NASDAQ, since he doesn’t trust them. He relates that Dubai had some peripheral connection with intelligence that suggested that nuclear weapons triggers might have gone through one of their ports, hence, no trust. And though that rather absurd standard would outlaw a good number of other trade partners - ourselves included - this at least speaks to the sentiment of many Americans: Those that would gasp rather than cheer or shrug when they see “Arabs Buy Controlling Interest In Major American Market”.

Hot Air On Inflation

The next topic is cut short by the jump to commercial, but before we’re smothered in commercials for life insurance and Viagra, Fred comports himself well by rattling off a hunk of numbers that go right over my head, using them as evidence to halt inflation at all costs while one slashes the tax code.

A trend is floating the surface: The tax code’s days are numbered, and protectionist sentiments are just /so/ 2005.

Iraq A Wreck?

Thompson’s then asked about Iraq - Is the policy a good one?

He spouts the usual GOP line these days: We went in with too little troops, but that we’ll now do whatever’s necessary to stabilize the country. I’m glad that they’re finally migrating away from championing the Bush war plan as the greatest thing since Cannae, but again, not a one has said exactly what “whatever’s necessary” entails. Not a mention of a draft, of war bonds, of tac nukes or reforming the Maliki government or UN intervention - nothing. Just “we win by winning.” Some may say that their commitment to the will to win is sufficient to win them support, but considering the “we win by winning” attitude got us where we are now - with a hideously mismanaged strategy that’s only now being slowly, slowly altered - I would strongly disagree.

We do the rounds of the candidates, and they give us the usual, Ron Paul being the only non-interventionist speed bump. Brownback reminds me - as I’d forgotten - that he supports the Biden plan.

When we get to Romney, he says we’ll stay the course, but also threatens Iran. He says that it’s key to /not/ use military force against them, but will do whatever is necessary. He repeats this a number of times, only pausing to call Ahmadinejad a “buffoon”, and saying that it was shameful to have him speak at the UN. I’m sure his poll numbers just spiked, but his diplomatic credit took a nose dive.

Ron Paul is asked about going after Iran’s jugular to prevent a nuclear weapon in Tehran’s hands, and he calls the fear of Iran to be “war propaganda”, pointing out that truly being caught by surprise by an enemy troop build up has never happened in our history. Sadly, I would disagree. I think he has a point when it comes to Iran and nukes, but we have been jumped quite a few times. He demands that Congress give its support for any military action as an act of war.

Interestingly, Fred takes the same tact when it comes to Congress.

Yet McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee all say that they’d like to consult Congress, but ultimately wouldn’t if they felt the pressure was really on. Giuliani scoffs at Paul saying we’d never been surprise attacked, and cites 9/11.

I sigh. Paul shoots back that 9/11 wasn’t a country, and that watching enemy weapon build-up is different. Giuliani says that, in fact, it was organized in a country - Afghanistan and Pakistan. Paul tries to bounce back, but Rudy’s in fine fettle and motors on, saying that if the clock was ticking to stop Iran from having a nuke, he’d act. No doubt Paul might’ve pointed out that, in fact, it was not “planned” there in any immediate sense - it was planned in Germany, the US and Saudi Arabia more than in Afghanistan.

It strikes me that given 9/11 is perhaps the most significant factor Rudy has in his favor, he might get the facts right. But then, it strikes me, getting the facts right would be counter-productive. That’s not how you play to the base on 9/11.

What The World Needs Now, Is Oil

Resource control - energy independence - is the next topic. The candidates are asked in turn what they’d do.

Tancredo, McCain and Giuliani all say that drilling domestically and a dash of green is the way to go. All of them talk about how the issue of energy independence is a crucial safeguard against terrorism. But it’s Huckabee, who’s looking increasingly appealing, who really lights things up, with an energetic assessment of our energy policy.

Huckabee says, by inference, that the Apollo Program is what’s needed - that this is a defense emergency and an environmental emergency that “has to be handled like NASCAR, not like taking the family station wagon in so that Goober and Gomer can look at it when they have time under the shade tree.” Charming quote, but the core of it has real resonance. He breathes some life and urgency into this.

Fred promptly kills it. He sounds about as enthusiastic as a Paxil commercial. Romney lights it up again, adding to Huckabee’s impassioned illustration about resource management that it would get the economy kicking in a way America wants and needs. It makes me sorry he was such a heel to anybody who gets the slightest fleck of mud on them - be that Obama, Larry Craig or Ahmadinejad. Now, whenever he talks about daring social programs, it smacks of the shiny-toothed fascists - politicians that embrace the people and yet will devour their young.

The Daddy Party Knows Best

Matthews asks how the Republicans can restore the people’s faith in the Republican Party’s management of the economy (among other things).

Romney says that fiscal vision and confidence is the way to go. Giuliani suggests the same, and notes that going confidently into the global community with new energy independence technology is the way to go - that’s what’ll give us an edge. He’s absolutely right.

Tancredo says that illegal immigration will be the cureall for wage rate increases and economic growth. He claims that the Republican stewardship of the nation had no principles, what with pouring slop subsidies into the gullet of big business and selling out the farm on illegal immigration and spending.

Suffer The Baby Boomers

Fred is asked how to save Social Security. He says Social Security is screwed, and says it in about a dozen ways from, “beating the corn” to “pitting generations against each other”. He then says that fiscal responsibility and “index benefits for inflation” are the way to go. I am just not sure what that latter thing is. But Fred says, “it will be a major step in the right direction.” How? What? Anyway, we move on.

Off The Fast Tracks

Tancredo is asked if the Bush Administration did an awful job negotiating trade agreements. He brightens right up; this is clearly his topic. He gives us a minute-long “you betcha”, ennumerating the ways that other countries were given far too great a benefit at the expense of the American people, for the sake of Multi-National Corporate benefits.

Romneycare

Romney is asked how his plan differs from Hillarycare2K. He says it is “individual”, “wiser”, and focus on private companies, not public medicine. Well, he might be right about the “wiser” in its spending - we just can’t tell, of course. As for the other two, so does hers.

Love Thy Enemy

They are asked about unions.

Huckabee points out that the right to unionize is good and proper, and that unions will explode onto the streets when wages are no longer adequate for a basic standard of living. He implies this time is nigh.

Romney says there are good unions and bad unions. He wants to tell an insightful story, but is cut off. He tries again. He is shut down. No story for him.

Fred says that there are good unions and bad. Rudy agrees. Hunter describes a union as “a receptacle of power” and says you need to work with them. Brownback tells a folksy story about how unions can be good; his mother was in one as a mail carrier. He notes there are bad unions too, but refrains from telling any such story.

Tancredo is not so happy about unions. He criticizes unions and civil servant benefits being coupled. He also claims unions stack their ranks with illegal immigrants. Truly, he is a man after his time. If Tancredo was in the 4th century Roman Senate, he could have saved the Empire. And his defense policy would’ve been better received.

Policing the Internet

Matthews asks Rudy how to police the internet.

Rudy says you shouldn’t tax it. However, you should organize a new state-federal tax force to hunt down predators and pornography. He doesn’t advocate creating a public agency to do it, but instead using the resources available, organized differently. He also suggests liaising with private security firms.

McCain says he would not police the ‘net any differently than now, but would be more aggressive in pursuing child predators on the ‘net.

And now, the Lightning Round

To Huckabee - Would you have vetoed SCHIP? Huckabee - No. He would have got it right the first time, working with Congress to craft it so that it wouldn’t have been so profligate.

To Thompson - Dangers of a weak dollar? Thompson - It threatens our credit, but it’s good for our exports.

To Rudy - What to do when China own us? Rudy - The Democrats are very negative all the time. Sell more goods to China.

To Ron - Would you support the GOP nominee no matter what? Ron - No.

To Tancredo - Would you? Tancredo - No.

To Brownback - Would you? Brownback - Yeah. Because they’re going to be pro-growth and pro-life.

To Hunter - Would you? Hunter - Yes, because they’re going to be pro-life, which is at the root of our problems.

To Giuliani - Will London replace NYC as the financial capitol of the world? Rudy - No way. We’ll keep selling our country’s culture and technology, and they’ll keep buying.

To Romney - Will London replace NYC as the financial capitol of the world? Romney - No, and I’ll support the GOP nominee.

To Fred - Will you pay some attention to Canada? Fred - They need to be with us in the War on Terror, and, yes, I’ll pay plenty of attention.

To Huckabee - How will you fix the airlines? Huckabee - They’ve got to get with the program.

To McCain - How will you catch bin Ladin? McCain - Create an “O.S.S.” tasked with one mission: Get him.

To Romney - Greatest threat to American economy? Romney - Pessimism.

To Brownback - Greatest threat to the US economy? Brownback - Illegitimate children.

To Rudy - Would it be good to have a third party? Rudy - No. And also, lack of education is the greatest threat to our economy.

To Fred - How did the debate go? Did you wait too long?

And I will forego his lame attempt at humor in responding, and simply leave you with this:

He makes me miss Alan Keyes.

A diplomat who was the beneficiary of Blackwater’s protection during her time in Iraq recently spilled about their tactics in a column to the LA Times. I would enjoy those “other voices, other views” so crucial to a comprehensive education about any subject, but Blackwater’s supporters seem either absent or, as in the case of its CEO, Prince, irrelevant. Moreover, the central point of this diplomat’s column is the core issue about Blackwater that matters most: They were a PR disaster in a war that is more about opinion than operational gains.

As the former diplomat tells, their behavior would constitute criminality in most anyone’s opinion, as valid as its reasons might be:

One particularly infuriating time, I was in the town of Irbil in northern Iraq, being driven to a meeting with a Kurdish political leader. We were on a narrow stretch of highway with no shoulders and foot-high barriers on both sides. The lead Suburban in our convoy loomed up behind an old, puttering sedan driven by an older man with a young woman and three children.

As we approached at typical breakneck speed, the Blackwater driver honked furiously and motioned to the side, as if they should pull over. The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt.

Until that point I had never mentioned anything to my drivers about their tactics, but this time I could not contain myself.

“Where do you all expect them to go?” I shrieked. “It was an old guy and a family, for goodness’ sake. Was it necessary for them to destroy their poor old car?”

My driver responded impassively: “Ma’am, we’ve been trained to view anyone as a potential threat. You don’t know who they might use as decoys or what the risks are. Terrorists could be disguised as anyone.”

“Well, if they weren’t terrorists before, they certainly are now!” I retorted. Sulking in my seat, I was stunned by the driver’s indifference

Fortunately, she goes on to note that most Iraqis she dealt with could differentiate between the US military and the contractors. Still, they’re both seen as parts of the US presence. And the real shame is not, perhaps, that we employed them, but that we abdicated the responsibility over and for them. As my previous posts noted, the Blackwater hearings were shamefully evasive, especially on the part of the State Department.

We should expect no less from this State Department I suppose, considering that they hired Blackwater to draft the investigation into its controversial activities.

Every race needs its “comeback kid,” and I’m convinced this race’s feelgood victory is Barack Obama. According to the New York Times, Iowans might not be too tough to convince of it either. The big numbers may be on Hillary’s side, but big crowds still flock to Obama.

This may sound like sappy, starry-eyed Barack-supporter swill - it even does to me a bit - but still, the evidence is there. A number of things play in the favor of Mr. Audacity: First, Hillary’s poll numbers usually come from calls to people who’ve been voting Democratic for years. By all indications, Obama is drawing new voters by the bushel. As the NYT article points out:

Nell Boyd, of Belmont, said she was more interested in bringing the troops home than debating how America went to war. Still, Mrs. Boyd, 55, said she was intrigued by Mr. Obama and two weeks ago made the first political contribution of her life to his campaign.

“Hillary and Obama, it’s between the two of them. Neither one have completely convinced me,” she said, moments after chatting with Mr. Obama in Waterloo. “The part I like about him is honesty. We should stand for that again.”

Indeed we should, Nell. And that’s the other thing going for Obama. Voter polls indicate that this country wants a savior in the form of an honest broker. Hillary polls high largely because the average American gets all of a minute of political news blipped into their brain in passing, and smells success on her. They swallow reservations about her mistakes and deceptions because they think she can pull it off. If Obama vaults ahead, those scales will fall from a great many eyes, as a Councilman from Iowa suggests in the article:

Last month, Frank Best, 38, a councilman from Columbus City, was backing Mr. Edwards, as he did in 2004, when he was the campaign’s Louisa County chairman. But one afternoon this week, Mr. Best was formally inducted into the Obama campaign, complete with a short face-to-face meeting with Mr. Obama, who draped his arm around him as they stood with a few other V.I.P. voters moments before a rally began.

“I think he’s the one who can be elected next November,” Mr. Best said, explaining his shift. “That’s a big scare for me, that we could somehow blow this. It’s so important for Democrats to take the White House back again. After everything we’ve been through for the last eight years, we need to do it.”

And, despite her rhetoric, a continuation of the last eight years is just what Hillary promises. She is a whole lot of nothing new - sharp criticism for an administration that, when asked what she would do differently, it turns out she’s pretty close to. Iowans are beginning to realize this. When they do, the whole country will too.