Moving goalposts and SCR 687
On Thursday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times and others, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) had this to say after a briefing by David Kay on the status of the WMD hunt in Iraq:

Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war. [...] We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him. [emphasis added.]

Much as it pains me to take issue with Senator Rockefeller, and many other fellow Democrats and fellow Americans: wrong.

Here's why: RESOLUTION 687 (1991), adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991, in which the Security Council...

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; [...]

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution; [...]

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; [...]

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. [emphases added]

...under the Chapter VII "use of force" provision of the United Nations charter.

Looking for not just WMD but WMD development is not "moving the goalposts"; those were the goalposts, and Rockefeller is unfortunately among those trying to move them.*

Put plainly, Resolution 687 was designed to cut off Saddam's WMD cojones and keep them from ever growing back. That was a Good Thing to decide to do. It's understandable Saddam didn't want that to happen, but it's incontrovertible that the United Nations Security Council did.

It's also understandable that many Americans -- from bloggers to Senators -- forgot this was a twelve year fight to keep Saddam down and out, not a twelve week or twelve month one to strike weapons from his hands. But they were wrong all the same.

Thus, I put to you the following propositions:

1. If evidence of real post-4/3/1991 research, development, or procurement of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is found, then the case for the Iraq war is made. Period. Maybe France, Russia, or China were just joking back in April 1991; the United States was not.
2. If it also turns out that there were no weapons per se, or few weapons, or that they were hastily destroyed or moved elsewhere in the runup to the war, then the timing and circumstances of Gulf War 2.0 will have been just about as perfect as a sane person could wish for.
3. If it turns out that there were in fact well hidden WMD (or well hidden research and development towards WMD) that eluded an invading US army of 150,000 for months, then the prospects of UN inspections ever finding them would appear to have been very slim indeed.

=====
* But wait, you say; it's what Congress voted for that matters, not some UN resolution. Here you go, from the Iraq war resolution last year, H.J. Resolution 114:

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." [emphasis added]

Passed by the Senate (with Rockefeller voting "yea") 77-23 on October 11, 2002. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:36:00 PM -- |    

 
Another unnecessary tradeoff: anthrax vs. AIDS
I take the threat of anthrax very seriously, but I also know it's not the only public health threat out there. So I was disappointed to read this item on AEGiS* about an apparently unnecessary crash anthrax vaccine program -- funded at the expense of AIDS, malaria and other infectious disease research. Veteran health reporter Laurie Garrett writes:

More than 500 scientists working on AIDS and other infectious diseases learned recently that their federal grants are being reduced so that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases can meet a White House mandate to come up with a new anthrax vaccine.

The move is unprecedented in the 116-year history of the National Institutes of Health, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the collection of 27 research institutes has never been ordered to carry out a major applied science program - in this case, making a vaccine. And, Fauci said, the NIH has never been told to come up with funds to pay for a White House-mandated effort in lieu of additional funding.

The anthrax vaccine is not included in the $1.75 billion in scientific research funds to combat bioterrorism that were allocated for 2003 and 2004. Last year, the White House tagged on an additional $250-million request to cover anthrax vaccine development, but Congress allocated only $43 million.

The White House told the NIH it had to fulfill the mandate even without designated funding, Fauci said in an interview Friday. [...]

An anthrax vaccine is already available and has been used on 2.5 million people, mostly military personnel, since the 1970s with only 22 serious adverse side effects reported, according to the Food and Drug Administration. A coalition of medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, supports continued use of the old vaccine.

Personally, I don't begrudge the expense of the Iraq war and occupation -- yet. But this administration's tax cuts have drained the funds that could have helped avoid a choice like this -- and that's even assuming the new vaccine is needed and that there weren't other money trees to shake besides the NIH itself. This looks pretty bad to me.


=====
* AIDS Education Global Information System posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:38:00 AM -- |    

 
Bring 'em on... I guess
Incredibly, the Department of Homeland Security is going to cut the number of air marshals at the same time it's announcing a heightened threat of hijackings. Thank goodness they're this well coordinated, I shudder to think what would have happened without the massive reorganization and streamlining.

Maybe someone is taking all that "pack, not a herd" stuff a little too seriously. I mean, I suppose I'm willing to storm a terrorist with a ballpoint pen if I have to, but I think an air marshal might be better at it. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:05:00 PM -- |    

 
Westar, FAA, AMICC
In a good account and analysis of the July 18 Congressional fracas, Amy Sullivan wrote that Democrats had better learn how to fight:

Just as Gingrich took down Democratic Speaker Jim Wright in 1989 and turned the congressional post office scandal into a national issue, Democrats could attack Majority Leader Tom DeLay and company for ethics violations and vow - as Gingrich did during the Monica Lewinsky investigation - to mention them in every single speech.

In a similar vein, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote in a Washington Post op-ed yesterday that

The Post recently reported on a matter in which documents -- real physical evidence -- suggest that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) solicited campaign donations in return for their assistance with an amendment to the energy bill that would have saved Kansas-based Westar Energy Inc. billions of dollars. And what is the House doing about this possible offense? Nothing. No member has filed a complaint with the ethics committee and no one else can, unless a House member agrees to forward the complaint.

In June, the Washington Post's Thomas Edsall reported:

Executives of a Kansas-based energy company believed that $56,500 in donations to political groups linked to four key Republican lawmakers last year would prompt Congress to exempt their firm from a problematic federal regulation, according to documents disclosed as part of a federal investigation of the company.

One executive of Westar Energy Inc. told colleagues in an e-mail that "we have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table" of a House-Senate conference committee on the Bush administration's energy plan. The cost, he wrote, would be $56,500 to campaign committees, including some associated with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (La.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.). [links to Westar documents added]

DeLay et al of course asserted that "there was no connection between Westar's donations and their involvement in the sharply debated energy legislation." Remarkably, Westar is apparently more interested in investigating the campaign donations than Congress is: an extensive Westar Special Committee web site contains the e-mails in question and a number of other documents related to the case. (The Westar executives involved have been fired or have resigned.)

Get busy, Democrats: mention Westar and the need to investigate it in every speech. Mention the FAA and AMICC investigations, too, and ask that Congressional hearings get to the bottom of all of DeLay et al's possible abuses of power for partisan purposes.

=====
UPDATE, 7/30: links to prior FAA and AMICC stories and to specific Westar exhibits added. Clarification: With the possible exception of a planned $2500 donation for the "Tom DeLay Congressional Committee," the Westar donations were planned for candidates associated with DeLay, Barton, Tauzin, and Shelby, and not for those legislators themselves. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:33:00 AM -- |    

 
F___in' A!
Eric Vanatta, Colorado Deputy State Legal Defender, is a new Hero Of The Realm for authoring a 7-page, 24-point legal brief on why charges against a student who called his principal "a fucker, a fag, and a fucking fag" should be dismissed.

Like any good defender would, Vanatta saw infringement of free speech, ignored the use of the incendiary word "fag,"* and drafted a soaring legal document that, after a brief exposition of the facts, begins its legal reasoning as follows:

In order to present a context for the alleged crime, we must first examine the history of Fuck and its evolution in society.

and concludes,

Fuck is certainly a controversial word that may be appropriate in certain venues and locales (Florida Elections Commission, speed eating contests, public defender offices) and may be inappropriate in others (weddings, Chuck-E-Cheese pizza parlors, district attorney offices). Some people may believe it is always inappropriate. But in all but a very few circumstances, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits our government from making that determination. This case falls outside of those very limited circumstances and as such, no conviction can result from Mr. X's alleged statements.

...bookending what is possibly the funniest legal document ever produced in the United States. Via Kevin Drum and the Smoking Gun, who awards the Vanatta brief the prestigious "2003 Legal Document of the Year," and reports

Sadly, Vanatta never got the chance to argue his motion before a judge. Because ten days ago he cut a plea deal that deferred prosecution of his client for four months--if the kid stays out of trouble during that period, the charge gets dismissed.

=====
* At the risk of seeming humorless and PC, I don't mean to make light of the use of the word "fag"; in principle it's homophobic, but it was probably "just" the derogatory word at the top of this kid's limited verbal menu.
UPDATE, 7/30: got embarrassed and cleaned up the title a bit. Also, happened to notice Matt Welch pointing out that if you say "f__k" on radio, it's a felony and you could lose your right to vote. Good thing I wasn't on the air when I read that. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:46:00 PM -- |    

 
Africa is a big place
On September 25, 2002, the Guardian ran a story by James Astill and Rory Carroll, "African gangs offer route to uranium." From the lead:

Iraqi agents have been negotiating with criminal gangs in the Democratic Republic of Congo to trade Iraqi military weapons and training for high-grade minerals, possibly including uranium, according to evidence obtained by the Guardian.

It comes as the dossier unveiled by Tony Blair accused Saddam Hussein of trying to buy African uranium to give Iraq's weapons programme a nuclear capability. The dossier did not identify any country allegedly approached by Baghdad but security analysts said the Congo was the likeliest, followed by South Africa. [...]

A delegation of five Iraqis was arrested in Nairobi by the Kenyan secret service last November while travelling to eastern Congo on fake Indian passports, a western intelligence officer said.

Via "Daily Howler" Bob Somerby, although sans the link to the article. Somerby quotes other British newspapers who also wrote of a Congo connection that day, including sourcing to the British Cabinet Joint Intelligence Committee. Like Somerby says,

Was it true, as the Times reported, that “the Iraqis were known to have targeted the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo?” Here at THE HOWLER, we simply don’t know. But our press corps has persistently suggested that the Brit intel was all about Niger, and lived or died by those crudely forged documents. These contemporary reports from the British press suggest that this wasn’t the case.

As an added bonus, Somerby busts Seymour Hersh's March 31 New Yorker piece, ("Who lied to whom?"), for implying the Guardian article was about the disputed Iraq-Niger connection.

Incidentally, if the Guardian report is true, this suggests a stake I have in political stability in the Congo that I wasn't aware of. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:04:00 PM -- |    

 
Hotel Vue des Alpes
From the online brochure:

The guests of Vue des Alpes are accommodated in nine comfortable single/double rooms of 13.5m2 each. Each room has a great terrace guaranteeing a view on the spectacular mountain panorama and the lake. A stately dining hall on the ground floor and a snug lounge bar to socialise in is at the visitors disposal.

As the guests will arrive by internet there are no plans for garages nor parking places.

Via Praschl (and filed under "recession.") posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:59:00 AM -- |    

 
Ouch
Tom Maguire, of the recently blogrolled "Just One Minute," puts it all together, "it" being Kobe Bryant and Iraq/Uraniumgate:

If you think about Yellowcake and sports for too long, you realize things that others had not suspected. George Bush is Kobe Bryant. Some part of the nation is a nineteen year old former cheerleader. And we know what happened, but we are struggling to determine if there was meaningful consent.

Valerie Plame Wilson story: scandal or mistake? It would be nice to know
Maguire is also in a tie with Mark Kleimann for Best Coverage of the Valerie Plame Wilson Story. Both seem to be hedging their bets that this is an "affair," but both are also pushing for more investigation. Kleimann recently conceived of an "innocent-but-incompetent" explanation that seems pretty plausible to me, but what do I know. Kleimann notes the pitiful coverage by the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. of this story -- which after all could be about White House staff doing a Victor Hanssen number on a hard-working CIA covert operative and her contacts around the world. (On the other hand, Kleimann's "Exhibit A" -- well, "Exhibit B" -- is Joel Achenbach, who can sometimes seem out of his depth on things like this, i.e., serious news.)

Re lack of bigfoot news coverage, Maguire makes the point that news organizations may have bigger fish to fry than the Plame story right now, but only the same sources to go to; therefore Plame goes on the back burner.

Maguire's "story thus far" post last Tuesday (The Valerie Plame Wilson Affair - A Timeline) is a good place to start if the story is unfamiliar to you. Most recently, he proposes asking newspapers some specific questions about the story via on-line chat events. Good idea, I think I will.


=====
UPDATE, 7/28: D'oh! Stupid work. Next chance will be on Wednesday, July 30, at noon: "National Defense: Post military reporter Vernon Loeb and intelligence reporter Dana Priest on national security and military defense." I'm setting my lunch break alarm for 11:55.

UPDATE, 7/30: it took a while, but I finally got a response of sorts from Dana Priest:

Arlington, Va.: Has anyone at the White House or the CIA taken steps to determine whether national security has been compromised by the July 14 leak to Robert Novak that Valerie Plame Wilson (wife of Amb. Wilson of Niger/yellowcake fame) was a CIA operative?

Dana Priest: Last question. I feel certain they would do this as a matter of routine in a case like this. Thanks and talk to you next week. Best, Dana

I.e., I don't know and I don't care. But thanks anyhow, Dana. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:04:00 PM -- |