Brits tell Americans to stop leaking their terror probe info.

The lying just never ends. Did anyone in the Bush administration ever suggest that Saddam Hussein might be behind the 9/11 attacks? The president today: “Nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks.” This despite the fact that various members of the administration — especially the vice president — have repeatedly suggested that the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein may have played a role in the attacks.

See the video and the facts that say otherwise, here.

I had missed this column from Jon Alter last month in Newsweek.

He says we need a pledge for the 37 senators and 193 members of the House of Representatives who voted to sustain President Bush’s recent veto of the bill that would have loosened the restrictions on promising stem cell research into cures for cancer, diabetes, paralysis and various motion disorders.

The vote’s already happened so we know just where these folks stand on the issue. So Alter proposes a pledge that would ask these worthies to go on record pledging not to accept future treatment with any cures they are now voting to block.

His proposed pledge goes as follows …

“Because of my strong opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, I hereby pledge that should I, at any point in the future, develop diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries or Parkinson’s, among other diseases, I will refuse any and all treatments derived from such research, at home or abroad, even if it costs me my life. Signed, ______”

This is rough stuff. And a lot toothier than the normal pledges which only touch one’s voting behavior. But someone who’s genuinely morally opposed to the use of stem cells (actually, ones which already have come into existence and are going to be disposed of) wouldn’t have a problem signing. The only folks put on the spot would be those who are just playing politics with other people’s lives.

Just imagine Rep. Jones who votes against allowing stem cell research but isn’t willing to forswear using the fruit of it if and when it’s his life on the line.

So why not? I think it’s a good idea. Who can pick up the ball and run with this?

Did your senator or representative vote against? You can ask them yourself. The phone’s always handy. But a lot of these folks are out there on the campaign trail. So you could ask in person.

This really is sort of a bad joke. A judge has thrown out a verdict against a corrupt defense contractor who swindled the CPA (the US occupation government of Iraq) because, he says, the plaintiffs hadn’t adequately demonstrated that the CPA was an “instrumentality of the US government.”

Basically the CPA was too multinational in character for the contractors who swindled it to be sued in American courts.

We’re going to be putting up an email link right here on the right — just like we did with our Social Security rolls last year. But until that goes up. I wanted to remind you that we want your tips from the field for our Election Central site over at TPMCafe. If you’re keeping a close eye on a race in your area, let us know. Maybe you’ve seen a story in the local media which hasn’t gotten national attention yet. Or maybe you’re seeing something happening on the ground that no one else is seeing. Let us know. Our election coverage is based on your eyes and ears. Email us at the comment email address over there at the right and include the subject line “Election”.

Keep your eyes peeled for some more data out of the Virginia senate race. I think we’ve got a real race on our hands here.

There are certainly a lot of other questions to ask about the invasion of Iraq. But because the ‘Was It Good for Israel?’ question is such a live one, both for critics of Israel in the US and her staunchest defenders, I thought I’d return to it.

And basically along these lines, can any defender of this policy still claim with a straight face that the US invasion of Iraq hasn’t been pretty much an unmitigated disaster for Israel?

I think the Israelis — pretty much across the board — understand that. Do the hawks in this country see that?

I really don’t know if they do or not.

I can think of one very marginal advantage that has accrued to Israel’s strategic position: the virtual destruction of a unified Iraqi state and thus what was at least once a fairly powerful Arab army, which was always an over the horizon threat to Israel, at least to some degree. That’s one.

Against that, let’s consider the following.

The vast increase in power of Iran, which is clearly the state that is the greatest threat to Israel in the Middle East.

The sharp weakening of the US’s standing in the Middle East — which amounts to a profound strategic setback for Israel in as much as US influence over the Arab and Muslim states of the Middle East has been a key factor in securing tentative acceptance of Israel by certain states in the region. Consider Sadat’s switch from the Soviets to the US, as Egypt’s key ally, as a backdrop to the Camp David accords.

Increased pressure on Middle Eastern regimes who’ve made either formal peace (Egypt, Jordan) with Israel or de facto reconciliation (like a few of the Gulf emirates.)

The dimensions of the disaster are so vast and its permutations so varied, it’s hard to know quite where to start or where to end the discussion. But as number four we might say, the fact that the entire region has been set on fire. That can’t be a good thing for a small country on the edge of the Levantine littoral that can’t be a great thing.

What do you think? We’ve openned up the discussion in this thread over at TPMCafe.

Lamont poised to get UAW endorsement?

SurveyUSA has a new poll out with George Allen up by only 3 points against Jim Webb.

Lieberman’s new pollster is gung-ho about Santorum too.