MORE WMD BLOWBACK — even Ed Koch is mad at the Democrats:

The Democratic candidates for president – and many in the media – are trying to make President Bush seem like a liar. In so doing, they are making an unforgivable mistake. . . .

Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better. I believe that the most important issue facing the world is international terrorism, and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for re-election.

I do not agree with him on many domestic issues, ranging from privatizing Social Security to tax reductions favoring the wealthy. However, because of his leadership and successes in the war against international terrorism, he is my current choice in 2004. . . .

I believe Democrats and their media allies will fail to bring Bush down, because taking on Saddam Hussein was the right course of action for America.

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile Tom Friedman thinks Bush’s big mistake is paying attention to the carping:

For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda — that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both Saddam and Osama.

If the Bush team wants to win the real war, it must keep its eyes on the prize.

I think he’s right, and I think that all of this has been exactly what Ed Koch call it, an effort by some Democrats and their media allies to distract people. I wonder if, in part, the purpose wasn’t to generate a smokescreen to undercut the impact on black voters of Bush’s trip to Africa.

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan I found this from weapons inspector David Kay:

Kay: I’ve already seen enough to convince me, but that’s not the standard. I’ve got to have enough evidence to convince everyone of that. And that’s why we’re going through this process. . . .

Well, he was certainly hiding and moving things around. He’s been doing that for twelve years. There was a tremendous amount of destruction and moving of things immediately and during the war. And some of this actually continued after the war. We’ve seen targeted looting in which you’ll go into a building and the only thing that’s destroyed are the documents in the file cabinets that are ashes. That’s why these documents right here are so important to us. . . .

Well, first of all, a big chunk of them deals with foreign procurement. Where they actually – every WMD program in this country has always had large elements of foreign procurement. So we’re finding purchasing records that tells us what they imported. They also-they were assiduous as record-keepers. So we’re finding progress reports. They also got financial rewards from Saddam Hussein by indicating breakthroughs. They actually went to Saddam and said we have made this progress. Their records, their audio tapes of those interviews give us that.

Read the whole thing. And the “foreign procurement” stuff has got to be making people nervous. No doubt, though, the French will claim that the documents are all forgeries. Say, you don’t think that was what the fake Niger documents were all about, do you?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ed Cone writes:

If a Democrat wins next year, what would be the future of Bush’s aggressive military strategy of addressing state-sponsored terrorism emanating from the Middle East? What will our message be toward Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria? How much time and money would a Democratic president devote to nation building? Those are answers I’d like to hear.

It doesn’t matter if you didn’t want to go to war, it’s done. We are where we are. Where we go next is the key.

That doesn’t mean that Bush shouldn’t get pounded for any shady tactics used to sell his agenda to the nation. But that agenda is in place. Friedman hardly gives Bush a free pass on resorting to “phony reasons for going to war,” but he’s able to compartmentalize. His advice is detailed and tough: “Sunni Muslim areas…need to be reinvaded and then showered with reconstruction funds,” and “we must provide massive support for the new Council.”

Screwing up on nation-building in Iraq will lead to more terrorism and undermine our status in the world. The same is true in Afghanistan. That’s why Democrats should lay off the trusty quagmire rhetoric and avoid politicizing the reconstruction process. There is no quick exit or cheap solution if we do it right.

If you want to get elected, you need a plan. Do the Democrats have one?

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: The WMD argument has officially entered its baroque phase.

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: Yes, it’s definitely there now.

POSITIVELY THE LAST UPDATE TO THIS POST: Tom Maguire has much more on this, and says that Josh Marshall is either being spun, or is on his way to a Pulitzer.

A COUP IN SAO TOME: Bill Hobbs thinks it deserves more attention.

PORPHYROGENITUS HAS TEN LIES WE WERE TOLD ABOUT IRAQ. Excerpt:

1) The Iraqi Army would fight much harder to defend its country than it did in Kuwait.

Most Iraqi soldiers deserted at the first opportunity, having no desire to defend the Ba’ath National Socialist regime.

2) Iraq is not Afghanistan – it will take half a million American troops and at least six months to capture Baghdad, resulting in 50,000 American casualties (of which approximately 10,000 would be deaths).

As with the earlier “Afghanistan is not Iraq” prediction, this one likewise failed to materialize. It took half that number of American troops, less than a third as much time, and a tiny fraction of that casualty estimate.

3) Iraq will draw Israel into the war, leading to a larger Middle East conflagration.

Didn’t happen.

4) There would be massive resistance from the Iraqi population defending their country from invasion.

Hardly anyone lifted a finger to defend the Ba’ath National Socialist Regime. Aside from the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, Ba’athist thugs, and foreign volunteers, the bulk of the population simply stayed out of the way.

Even now, if one looks at the pattern of attacks, they are by and large restricted to a region north and west of Baghdad, where Saddam drew his greatest support, and carried out by Ba’athist death squads (typically the same sort of people who were used to terrorize the Iraqi population) and foreign auxiliaries from other Arab states. The vast majority of the Iraqi population, rather than supporting these attacks, are mainly concerned that we end them and produce security.

5) There would be street by street, house to house fighting in Baghdad that would destroy the city, cost thousands of American casualties, and drag on for six weeks or more.

Didn’t happen that way.

Read the whole thing. Porphyrogenitus asks: “Is it proper to characterize these as ‘lies’? Or were they just, *ahem* ‘intelligence’ failures on the part of those who issued these pre-war warnings?” I demand a Congressional investigation!

MATTHEW HOY HAS DIVERSITY ADVICE for the New York Times:

There is not a major newspaper in the country whose collection of columnists are so dominated by one ideology. Diversity doesn’t just mean skin color.

The Times needs a makeover. But can the oped pages be diversified without getting rid of Gail Collins? If Bill Keller wants it, and the Sulzberger family thinks the paper’s in trouble, yes. The question is whether the wall of denial has really been breached.

Meanwhile, it seems that at the rest of the paper, diversity was only skin (and stereotype) deep:

Halloway’s problems could lead to similar questions, since she is also African-American. Like Blair, she had caught the attention of Raines, who put her in the media section of the paper, insiders said. “She was a Howell appointment,” said one insider. “He wanted to increase coverage of hip-hop music.”

As Andrew Sullivan observes:

I guess I’m lucky I didn’t work for Raines. He’d have had me covering hairdressers and musical comedy. And he’d have expected me to be grateful.

No doubt.

PONTIFEX HAS SOME FIRSTHAND OBSERVATIONS on repressed sexuality in Iraq.

GEORGIA TECH has hired cryptography and nanotech pioneer (they’re closer than you think) Ralph Merkle. Good move on their part.

IRAQ NOW HAS A WAR CRIMES MUSEUM: I don’t think Robert Fisk will be pleased, though:

Dubbed Amna Suraka (Red Security), the building was used by the ex-regime to house and torture prisoners.

One of the chambers was ironically referred to as the “Sheraton” by the prisoners since it was a clean, tidy room with walls made of sound-proof material so cries would not emanate from the chamber while prisoners were being tortured.

It can’t really be a war crime if America isn’t involved, after all.

LT SMASH has a roundup of military bloggers from the Iraq region. He also responds to a critic.

STEVEN DEN BESTE thinks that Saudi Arabia is likely to be in the crosshairs next. I hope he’s right.

THIS REPORT makes it sound as if the Turks are still in denial:

The message to the delegation of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA), a U.S.-based lobbying group, which visited Turkey in June was blunt. “The Turkish authorities clearly want us to go back to the U.S. and tell people that Turkey made no mistakes and to defend Ankara’s policies before the Iraqi war,” one Turkish-American leader complained. A member of the ATAA delegation declared that the moderate Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan preached to the delegation about the merits of promoting peace in Islam as a way to go to heaven.

Behind closed doors, however, Turks bitterly complain to each other that the Erdogan government committed a monumental mistake and destroyed decades-old strategic relationship with Washington.

I’d say “seriously damaged” but not quite “destroyed.” But I tend toward optimism, and this degree of denial may make that optimism misplaced. Still, as the article suggests, there are lots of reasons for cooperation.

DAVID ADESNIK writes that the Washington Post doesn’t understand its own polls.

JOSE BOVE’S PRISON IN FRANCE was renovated with help from McDonald’s. Heh.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner has more on Bove.

JAMES LILEKS SPOTS A CULTURAL WATERSHED:

But you know, now that I think about it, there’s been a sharp decrease in the Boomer Uber Alles effect. If an ad agency suggested using a Joe Cocker song for a car commercial they’d be met with rolled eyes. There’s a marked decrease in tie-dye nostalgia and dead rock-star hagiography. Culturally speaking, I think that pig in the python has finally been digested.

I think he may be right.

NOW THIS IS INTERESTING:

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Hundreds of Syrian troops have begun dismantling bases in Lebanon, officials said Tuesday, moving to reduce Syria’s military profile in the country.

Syria has some 20,000 troops in Lebanon, about 1,000 of which began dismantling bases near Beirut and in eastern and northern areas late Monday, the official told The Associated Press.

The troops moves were seen as a bid by Damascus to placate criticism at home and abroad of Syria’s prolonged military presence in Lebanon, its western neighbor.

Hmm.

RON BAILEY HAS AN INTERESTING REPORT on the goings-on at a conference about conflicts of interest in science. But here’s my favorite bit:

It turns out that four of the 18 speakers earn a substantial portion of their incomes by being plaintiff’s witnesses in product liability suits, while two of the four moderators work for activist groups. Hmmm? None of the four journalists on the media panel at the conference had anything to disclose other than that they are journalists?

Maybe that’s enough.

OF POLITICS AND HEALTH: This is interesting.

ALPHECCA’S WEEKLY SURVEY OF GUN BIAS IN THE MEDIA is up. This is a great service, and Eric Scheie reports that Jeff could use the cash, so feel free to hit his tipjar (on the left, disguised as a picture of cats).

CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER — CONT’D: What a day. First Eric Alterman was being defended in The Corner. Now The Daily Howler is defending the Bush Administration and says the press is deliberately getting the story wrong to make Bush look bad:

But what “new evidence” do the writers mean? What new evidence suggests that the Admin had early warning that the uranium-from-Africa claim could be false? Uh-oh! Priest and Milbank cite yet another 2002 mission to Niger, in which General Carlton Pulford concluded “that Iraq probably could not acquire nuclear material from Niger” (our emphasis). Of course, since the Bushies have said that the SOTU statement refers to other countries as well as Niger, Pulford’s report—even if believed—doesn’t contradict Bush’s speech. But in this article, that point is obscured right from the start. A reader has to work very hard to dig that info out of this article.

Indeed, all over the press corps, reporters are now mysteriously failing to get the point the Admin made this weekend. In particular, many scribes are conflating the earlier uranium-from-Niger report with the later uranium-from-one-of-several-countries claim—the claim which the Brits still affirm. Last night, Chris Matthews conflated these claims on Hardball; Jim Angle even conflated the claims on last night’s Special Report. But the most striking conflation is found in the lead of Nicholas Kristof’s column this morning. . . .

Apparently, there’s a great deal to this story that Kristof doesn’t know, like what the Bush Admin said all weekend. Did Bush’s statement constitute a “Niger uranium hoax?” All weekend long, major spokesmen explained that Bush’s statement concerned nations other than Niger. But legions of scribes don’t seem to have heard. Kristof is just one of many.

For the record, Kristof pushes this point very hard. He persistently implies that Bush’s statement was a reference to Niger only. “[T]he White House, eager to spice up the State of the Union address, recklessly resurrected the discredited Niger tidbit,” he says. And he never reports what the Admin has actually said—that the statement referred to other countries. Kristof complains about the Administration’s “dishonesty and delusion,” and he calls the Bush statement a “falsehood.” But given his column’s shaping of facts, he may have a slight problem himself.

What is happening here? In the case of individual scribes, we can’t tell you, but in the aggregate, this pattern is familiar. To all appearances, the press corps has reached an overall judgment—the Bush Admin spun the intelligence on Iraq. That overall judgment may well be true. But as you know, when the press corps reaches an overall judgment, they often start looking for easy-to-tell stories to illustrate their global belief. If they have to change or make up facts, all too often they’re willing to do it. In this case, the Washington press corps has clearly decided that the Bush Admin mistreated intelligence. And, as they have done many times in the past, they seem to be massaging some basic facts to convince you of that global conclusion.

There’s much more to this post, and you should read the whole thing. (Via Erik Peterson).

WHILE CHECKING OUT JESSE WALKER’S BLOG for a piece that I’m writing on low power radio, I ran across this story from the New York Times dated July 6. It says that the “children’s prison” liberated by allied forces in Iraq was really an orphanage, but that the troops mistook it for a jail. (Must’ve been pretty Oliver Twistian to inspire that sort of mistake). I missed that story when it came out, so I want to note it here.

The children’s mass graves, however, still appear to be genuine.

UPDATE: Hmm. Reader Mitchell Kaufmann emails: “Glenn, what kind of orphanage has parents and relatives outside eagerly greeting the children?”

And sure enough, the original report says: “There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back.” Something’s wrong here. The original story says that the kids were imprisoned because they hadn’t joined the youth branch of the Ba’ath party. The new story, by Tyler Hicks, doesn’t explain any of this, or name any sources.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Justin Katz has more on this, and the Times story looks a bit dubious.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Darren Kaplan points out that there was a U.N. weapons’ inspector’s report of children’s prisons in Iraq on record before the war started: “It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene.”

But then, those guys said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, too.

PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY WITH MOVIES: Readers comment on why, over at GlennReynolds.com.

ARE WE HEADING TOWARD WAR IN KOREA? I rather doubt it. Though “assisted regime change” — with Chinese help, perhaps — isn’t out of the question.

UPDATE: This is interesting, and it’s the kind of thing I had in mind.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Sounds like Joe Biden is calling for war. Or something pretty close.

A NEW CAMPAIGN TACTIC: Bob Graham is sponsoring a NASCAR driver? That’s what it says. Probably not a bad idea; it’s at least interesting.

AARON BROWN IS BEING SAVAGED FOR HYPOCRISY:

On his first night back since falsely impugning President Bush, by highlighting an already-revealed fraudulent Web site report about how a CIA consultant claimed to have informed Bush, before his State of the Union address, about the falsity of the report about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, CNN anchor Aaron Brown failed to offer a correction.

But, see, Brown didn’t lie. He just relied in good faith on somebody else’s report. It’s only a “lie” to do that if you’re a Republican. I guess this attitude is why CNN is getting “pummeled” in the ratings.

HERE’S A BLOG DEVOTED TO NANOTECHNOLOGY — not to be confused with this Slashdot-like site devoted to nanotechnology.

HOROLOGIUM NOTES that it’s a lot of libertarians and right-wingers attacking Pat Robertson over his sleazy Liberia connections. Well, not just libertarians and right-wingers. But it’s true, I think, that Cynthia McKinney got less grief from the left than Robertson’s getting from the right.