For some reason, Glenn Reynolds (original) is very interested in the Volcker Report, which implicates the UN in corruption involving Iraq’s food for oil program, but hasn’t said a word about CNN’s report that the US condoned Saddam’s oil smuggling.
About that election — I gotta say, it looks like it went better (original) than I thought it would. The final results won’t be in for another week or two, but the preliminary indications look solid in terms of turnout, and I’m glad for that. In retrospect, I should have specified the necessary turnout for each major ethnic segment of Iraq; the biggest problem I see going forward is that the Sunnis stayed away in droves. I’m hearing 20% turnout. That rekindles my worries about civil war in Iraq; a lot depends on whether or not any Sunni parties are included in the governing coalition. No party won a 2/3rds majority, which is the majority needed in the National Assembly to elect a President, so there will be a coalition. Who will the members be? That’s the big question (original). ...
It’s pretty great that Iraq is getting to have an election. I don’t have a lot of hope for it; I think that we’ve failed to prevent the Sunni/Shia conflict from heating up, and I am not yet convinced we’re going to see any kind of stability in the country over the course of the next five years or more. But I’m glad that Iraq is having a multi-party election. It’s been over fifty years since they’ve had one.
Andrew Sullivan passes on extensive quotes from a Stratfor report on Iraq. I’m not entirely sure you can characterize Stratfor as “pro-war,” but they are a significant private intelligence agency and their conclusions bear examination. From the quotes, it boils down to the insurgency having become self-sustaining and the US not having enough forces to contain it.
The biggest reason I value David Neiwert’s reporting is the simple, matter-of-fact way he reminds us that yes — the rhetoric of the right is extreme and unacceptable. His latest post on the subject is a great example. It’s so obvious: “I say start executing the leftists in our country, soon.” That’s flat out ugly and it’s not an exceptional case.
Interesting factoid: Alberto Gonzales, nominee for the post of Attorney-General, apparently believes Gavin Newsom, as an elected executive of the government, has the right to take a stand against laws he considers unconstitutional: MR. GONZALES: Senator, I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional. And that is a position and a view not just of this president, but many, many presidents from both sides of the aisle. Obviously, a decision as to whether or not to ignore a statute passed by Congress is a very, very serious one, and it would be one that I would spend a great deal of time and attention before arriving at a conclusion that in fact a president had the authority under the Constitution to — ...
If you pay attention to the right wing of the political blog world, you’ll perhaps have noticed the argument that the AP “ act[s] as mouthpieces of terrorist organizations.” Why? Because a stringer for the AP took pictures of an election worker being killed in Baghdad. Indeed, the AP is “ participating in murder (original).” Yowza. That sounds really bad. As it happens, Ryan of the Dead Parrot Society is a blogger and a journalist. He has the advantage of a) being level-headed and b) knowing a little bit about news photography. So his takedown is worth reading. My favorite excerpt: ...
Via Patrick: the Pentagon has asked the White House to figure out a way to keep detainees in custody indefinitely without a trial. Note the chain of requests carefully — if the article’s accurate, the Pentagon instigated this. I see three possibilities, only one of which has any silver lining. It could be exactly what it looks like: the Pentagon chipping away at civil liberties. It could be the White House asking the Pentagon to ask them for ideas, so that the White House can claim it was the Pentagon’s idea and they’re horrified — plausible deniability. Or, and I’m not saying this is what’s going on but I think it’s possible, the Pentagon could be sick and tired of holding these guys without trial and they could have done this as a way of forcing the White House’s hand. ...
Hugh Hewitt has a fairly revealing piece (original) this morning calling for reporters to answer a short questionnaire. What questions would I like answered? Very simple ones: For whom did the reporter vote for president in the past five elections? Do they attend church regularly and if so, in which denomination? Do they believe that the late-term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion should be legal? Do they believe same sex marriage ought to be legal? Did they support the invasion of Iraq? Do they support drilling in ANWR? If I know the answers to those ten questions, I can quickly decide what degree of trust with which to approach a reporter’s reporting. Even “low trust” reporters can earn trust, of course, but degrees of suspicion are a fact of life. Only MSM pretends otherwise, and bloggers have exposed that pretension as the fiction it really is, even if most of MSM want to continue the charade. ...
Credit where credit is due on tsunami relief: Bush is sending an aircraft carrier and working closely with several nations in the region on relief efforts. Also, as expected, there will be future monetary support as the U.S. Agency for International Development requests additional funds. I still think it’d be a good gesture to cancel the inauguration and redirect those funds, but that’s me.