THIS MODERN WORLD

They really do seem to believe that the act of saying a thing makes it true.

Hinderaker: “Murtha’s suggestion that the administration said Iraq had nuclear weapons is absurd. (Why don’t talk show hosts ever seem to call Democrats on these wild misrepresentations?)”

Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03:

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing.

Much more here. Also an email address, if you want to encourage the Power Boys to correct the record. They’re big on citizen activism in the face of demonstrable published falsehoods — I’m sure they’ll appreciate the constructive criticism.

Via Under the Same Sun, here’s more important information about our overwhelming love and concern for the Iraqi people:

Two Iraqi women whose husbands and children were killed by US troops during the Iraq war have been refused entry into the United States for a speaking tour. The women were invited to the US for peace events surrounding international women’s by the human rights group Global Exchange and the women’s peace group CODEPINK.

In a piece of painful irony, the reason given for the rejection was that the women don’t have enough family in Iraq to prove that they’ll return to the country.

If all goes according to plan, I should be on Air America this afternoon sometime between 2:00 and 2:30 EST.

I’ve been reading a book from 1986 called Sacred Rage: The Wrath of Militant Islam. It’s by Robin Wright, who now works for the Washington Post and is one of the better reporters around on the Mideast. Here’s an excerpt:

After the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Middle East had begun witnessing a virulent new strain of terrorism that spread like an infectious virus…

The early targets were not Western. Many incidents were spectacular and well publicized: the 1981 plot to overthrow the government of Bahrain and install an Islamic republic; sabotage and assassination attempts over an extended period against the President of Iraq; the 1979 seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and uprisings that year and the next in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia; the assassination Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Did you notice that sentence in the middle?

…sabotage and assassination attempts over an extended period against the President of Iraq

I hope you did, because we’ve put Saddam Hussein on trail and will almost certainly execute him for his response to this “virulent terrorism”—specifically, ordering the executions of 148 people after a 1982 assassination attempt against him in the Iraqi town of Dujail.

And Sacred Rage is par for the course. From 1982-90, the New York Times mentioned Dujail exactly zero times, while very occasionally saying things like “[Saddam] has survived a number of assassination attempts.” (Don’t even ask about U.S. television.)

By contrast, Nexis shows 386 references to Dujail on TV and radio since we invaded Iraq. Paula Zahn did a segment on the hideous treatment of one woman from Dujail.

So:

BEFORE SADDAM DISOBEYS ORDERS: Not only does the U.S. media maintain total silence about Saddam’s ghastly deeds in Dujail, on occasion they actually adopt his perspective—i.e., that he’s dealing with “virulent terrorism.”

AFTER SADDAM DISOBEYS ORDERS: Great wailing and gnashing of teeth about his hideous crimes in Dujail, filled with details about the suffering of people whose lives (all of a sudden) have some value.

You can understand why Saddam may be a little bitter about this.

Though the photo-ops and headlines seem nice, this India nukes deal should scare the hell out of you :

Reversing decades of U.S. policy, President Bush ushered India into the world’s exclusive nuclear club Thursday with a landmark agreement to share nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise with this energy-starved nation in return for its acceptance of international safeguards.

Eight months in the making, the accord would end India’s long isolation as a nuclear maverick that defied world appeals and developed nuclear weapons. India agreed to separate its tightly entwined nuclear industry — declaring 14 reactors as commercial facilities and eight as military — and to open the civilian side to international inspections for the first time.

Don’t get me wrong, forming an alliance with India and getting a handle on their nuclear program is a very good thing, but the President’s end-run around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dangerous and short-sighted. As Fred Kaplan explained in Slate :

First, the United States has no authority to grant such an exemption on its own. The NPT is a treaty signed by 187 nations; it is enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and it is, in effect, administered by the five nations that the treaty recognizes as nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France). This point is not a legal nicety. If the United States can cut a separate deal with India, what is to prevent China or Russia from doing the same with Pakistan or Iran? If India demands special treatment on the grounds that it’s a stable democracy, what is to keep Japan, Brazil, or Germany from picking up on the precedent?

Second, the India deal would violate not just international agreements but also several U.S. laws regulating the export of nuclear materials.

In other words, an American president who sought to make this deal would, or should, detect a myriad of political actors that might protest or block it—mainly the U.N. Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, and the U.S. Congress. Not just as a legal principle but also as a practical consideration, these actors must be notified, cajoled, mollified, or otherwise bargained with if the deal has a chance of coming to life.

The amazing thing is, President Bush just went ahead and made the pledge, without so much as the pretense of consultation—as if all these actors, with their prerogatives over treaties and laws (to say nothing of their concerns for very real dilemmas), didn’t exist.

Seeing as this is the same President that’s all but shredded the NPT with pursuit of “low-yield” nuclear weapons and has been openly hostile toward international organizations and agreements since day one (Kyoto, UN weapons inspectors, John Bolton, etc.), we shouldn’t be too surprised that the President would once again give the finger to allies like Russia and France. This deal still has to pass Congress, so if you’re as concerned about this as I am, now would be a good time to write a letter to the editor, call your representatives, and help spread the word that the President shouldn’t be making bilateral agreements at the expense of the international community.