OK, so Dubya & Co. knew beforehand that their claim about Iraq’s buying uranium from Niger was bogus.

It’s part of a larger pattern of deception the administration engaged in in the leadup to the war. Does it matter?

Objectively, of course it does. But does it matter to the voters? Will this become WeaponsGate, or will it just slide off Dubya’s back like so many other things have?

I think it depends on how things go in Iraq. If, by this time next year, we’re still losing a soldier a day to Iraqi insurgents, Hussein’s still at large, no WMD have been found, and we’re not really any closer to some kind of peaceful democratic Iraqi state, then how we got into the war will become a matter of greater concern to the public.

From the beginning with Iraq, there was a debate about the war’s necessity. Dubya & Co. knew that Americans traditionally are very reticent to fight unnecessary wars. So they lied — about the Al Qaeda connection, about nukes, about WMD, about pretty much everything — to convince the booboisie the war was crucial to U.S. security.

The elites knew better. They knew it was an entirely optional war. Wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of Hussein once and for all? Sure, why not. Let’s do it. What the heck?

Those against the war stood strong on the ground that every war is a gamble with fate and shouldn’t be fought unless absolutely necessary to avert greater tragedy. And on the basis of the evidence, such as it was, Iraq certainly didn’t meet that test.

Now it appears that the United States is, if not losing the gamble on Iraq, definitely stretching the odds. Our horse is struggling to place. Where that horse is down the stretch next year will determine to a great extent what role Iraq plays in the 2004 presidential election.

Who the Democrats nominate for president is also crucial. Though I sense that Kerry is calculating enough to turn against Dubya on Iraq if and when necessary for political advantage, it may take someone with Dean’s tenacity to really keep the issue in the forefront of the news and to really hammer home on Iraq if the bad news keeps rolling in.

The problem is Dean is already being brushed off by the news media as a hot head. So, if the one presidential candidate who’s been hardest on Dubya on Iraq and has momentum (unlike Graham and Kucinich) is already being tagged as a fringe character, what chance does the anti-war crowd really have to make some progress on the war front — to get out of Iraq and to bring the troops home?

The fourth estate won’t do it on its own — it just can’t keep up the pressure for that long. And with Republicans controlling Congress, any Congressional investigations will be scuttled at the president’s pleasure.

For all these reasons, I’m pessimistic that all the news of Dubya’s deception on Iraq will gain any traction, unless Iraq gets really bad and the Democratic candidate has not only the cojones to take on Dubya on foreign policy but also some measure of sympathy from the news media reporting on the race.

(Also posted to Stand Down: No War Blog.)

… you really should be now, since I’ll be editing its daily news service in my spare time for a few days (through Saturday, to be precise) while editors Wendy McElroy and Brad Rodriguez are away on vacation.

Check in sometime tomorrow for a new batch of stories hand-picked by yours truly. Find out more about ifeminism, aka libertarian feminism or equity feminism.

So here’s another place Karen and I can’t hang out anymore. Skokie, a Chicago suburb, has banned smoking in:

• Shopping malls
• Workplaces
• Sports stadiums
• Restaurants
• Walk-in closets

OK, so the last one’s a joke, but you definitely get the idea. The original proposal would have banned smoking in bars, but then the village’s trustees came to their senses.

It’s not enough for crusading Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen, though:

To those who have sought a complete ban of smoking in all public places, I challenge you to continue your crusade. Your work has only begun this evening. I challenge you to persuade the Illinois General Assembly …

What’s especially alarming is that these smoking bans are becoming viewed as a stamp of progressivity. Once that happens, they’ll get passed out of a kind of jurisdictional peer pressure rather than on their dubious merits. To wit:

“I’m really proud of Skokie today,” said Village Trustee Randall Roberts, who voted for the law. “It’s a giant leap forward for our village.”

Ugh.

Andrew Sullivan is seriously deluded:

One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus [sic] notonly [sic]because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere.

By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs’ [sic]. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn’t always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.

It’s true that Hussein was a big financial supporter of Palestinian terrorist groups, but the people attacking U.S. forces in Iraq right now may be many things, but they’re not the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11 and they’re not the terrorists we had any cause to take over a country for.

And to say that we’re actually in a better position now is absolutely ludicrous. A base in Iraq might make it easier for the United States to wage war on terror in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., but U.S. occupation is itself the proximate cause of Iraqi terrorism — in this case, perhaps legitimately labeled rebellion — against the men and women who came to win a war, and now want to go home.

(Also posted to Circle Bastiat.)

(1) This New Republic piece on “the selling of the Iraq war,” where truth about the reliability of the intelligence on WMD was ” the first casualty, is an excellent overview of how it went down and what it means. What’s interesting about it is that it’s an attempt by TNR to salvage the value of pre-emptive war from people like Dubya. TNR was for the war for the reasons Dubya stated.

Unlike most conservatives, they’re not looking to play a shell game and argue that the liberation of Iraq was the point all along. Still, that misses the point. It’s the policy, not the people. Now that we have started giving the OK on pre-emptive war, it will be much easier for presidents to take us into future wars. Sometimes those wars will be based upon sound intelligence, but at this point the odds of that don’t seem very strong.

(2) Sen. Richard Lugar says U.S. forces will be in Iraq for at least five years, at least. Is it possible, is it wise, to leave sooner? Cato’s Charles Pena says yes, and points to Afghanistan and Panama as examples of successful quick exits. I’m not so sure.

It’s not clear to me that U.S. security is worse off by our presence in Iraq. Agreeing to leave immediately as so many in Iraq clearly want may result in a resurgence of Hussein and friends or some other dastardly coalition that will be at least oppressive and maybe virulently anti-American and supportive of terrorism. On the other hand, I’d hate to have to face the mothers and fathers of the one to two U.S. troops killed every day since “major hostilities” ceased.

(3) A couple of good columns from Steve Chapman: Title IX, and the Internet law no one missed.

For what it’s worth:

1. Libertarian Candidate (100%)
2. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (49%)
3. Bush, George W. – US President (48%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (47%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (44%)
6. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH – Democrat (41%)
7. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO – Democrat (37%)
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (31%)
9. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (23%)
10. Graham, Senator Bob, FL – Democrat (21%)
11. Lieberman Senator Joe CT – Democrat (18%)
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL – Democrat (16%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (-6%)

I love how I agree with LaRouche negative 6 percent of the time. Ha! Hey, Vince, according to this I agree with Howard Dean almost half the time.

Better pull out the checkbook!

Well, I certainly would think about changing my name if I were an Arab or Muslim. You see, if the INS doesn’t get around to extending your visa or processing your application for permanent residency fast enough, and you happen to be an Arab and/or Muslim man, and you’re foolish enough to think that by registering with the INS you’ll remove any suspicions that you’re somehow a terrorist, think again.

Thirteen thousand Arabs and Muslims made that mistake. Trust me, it won’t happen again.

I just don’t get it. Unless there’s evidence that somone has ties to a terrorist group, why deport him? If the only reason for deportation is because the paperwork isn’t there, then this is clearly racial profiling. After all, millions of Mexicans not only are undocumented, but have powerful political supporters pushing for them to get amnesty.

This is precisely why immigration needs to be more open to everyone and regularized, so that immigration authorities can focus on screening immigrant applicants from terrorist-designated countries to make sure they don’t have any ties to terrorist groups.

And it’s just a counterintuitive policy. Terrorists won’t register to begin with. And now innocent Arabs and Muslims will refuse to register and be force to live even further underground than they already are. Nothing else sends the message that the United States isn’t out to harm Muslims than summarily deporting a few thousand of them.

I used to think Dubya & Co. were just extremely misguided about the Iraq war. Now I think they’re a bunch of liars. They hid intelligence reports contradicting their claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

And now they’re spinning supposed evidence to justify their bogus claims.

The attitude in Dubya’s administration about Iraq’s WMD seems to parallel George Costanza’s view on lying: If you really, really believe it, it’s not a lie.

Ironically, the best way to make sure we don’t see the likes of the Texas smuggling tragedy that led to the deaths of 18 illegal immigrants is a relaxation of law enforcement.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the Texas authorities seem to be fiercely pursuing the culprits behind this monstrosity.

But the reason why migrant workers turn to smugglers, or coyotes as they’re known, is because they can’t get across the border in a safer, more legal way. And as more and more resources have been poured into border patrol, the coyotes have had to take even more precautions to make sure their illegal cargo is not discovered. That’s how you get someone with the brilliant idea of packing people like sardines in the back of a refrigerated truck with no air to breathe.

As long as there’s opportunity here, people will try to seize it. And I don’t want to make the United States a police state or a third-world country to stop illegal immigration. And there’s not a damn thing wrong with trying to make money for honest work, no matter what the law says.

American policy, however, is that migrant workers must risk their lives in order to improve them. One wonders if the real tragedy, from the perspective of those responsible for our disastrous and immoral border policy, isn’t that anyone survives the trek at all.