Baby Killers

Referring back to Chaz Bufe's definition of "pro-life", the New York Times has a stellar example of a conservative rule that puts tens of thousands of born babies at risk, the better to pursue their vendetta against undocumented immigrants.

Undocumented immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid, but can get coverage for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery. In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and states had to cover them for one year from the date of birth.

Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the parents must provide documents to prove the child's citizenship.

The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of the effects on newborns.

Obtaining such documents can take weeks or months in some states, doctors said. Moreover, they added, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with government agencies that could report their presence to immigration authorities.

The pediatric community came out hard against this change, because the delay in receiving documentations (and the likelihood that illegal immigrants parents may not want to waltz into a government agency) deprives babies of care at some of the most critical points in their development. But what's really twisted is that there is literally no conceivable purpose beyond this bill other than harassment of illegal immigrants. Specifically, since anyone who is born in America automatically has US citizenship under the 14th amendment, it is almost physically impossible for a child born in a US hospital to not be a citizen eligible for Medicaid, even if their parents are illegal. So any claims that this is necessary verification are disingenuous.

Anne Marie Murphy, the Medicaid director in Illinois, said: "The new policy will be a barrier to Medicaid enrollment for citizen children. If we pay medical claims for childbirth at a hospital in Illinois, we know that the child was born here and is eligible for our program, based on income. It would be physically impossible for the child not to be a citizen."

Even if that weren't true, I'd say that putting innocent born children at greatly increased risk of death to buff up one's anti-immigrant bona fides is just wrong. Bufe appears to be right: Pro-lifers are "Vitally concerned with the wellbeing of "babies" right up to the moment of their birth--at which time they become "welfare cases" and "future criminals" undeserving of such luxuries as housing, health care, adequate nutrition, and a decent education."

Via Steve Benen

Off Judging

I'll be judging the Apple Valley "Minneapple" debate tournament this weekend. It's one of the best high school tournaments out there, and always a blast. So I might not post until the end of the weekend.

Allen's Battery

Headline from CNN: Senator Won't Scold Backers for Tackling Heckler. The Senator refers to George Allen of Virginia.

Sometimes, you read these stories and you realize that the whole story about "hitting" or "attack" is wildly overblown. Here, it's not. This was assault, plain and simple.

If Allen loses this race, it will be because he didn't learn from Jerry Kilgore's mistake in 2005: In Virginia, there is a limit to how low you can go before the voters turn on you. Refusing to condemn assault and battery is one. Accusing your opponent of pedophilia is another. Webb seems to have the late momentum, and maybe Allen's fate will send a message to similar-minded GOP politicians with dreams of the gutter.

Early Voting as Poll Proxy?

Daily Kos has been hyping early voting returns as a sign of excellent Democratic trends, using Montana, New Mexico and Arizona as examples. Indeed, in the latter case, the margins are so strong for challenger Jim Pederson that Kos thinks he has a better chance of scoring an upset than "golden boy" Harold Ford in Tennessee. Given that many Democrats had completely given up on Arizona, this would be a shocker.

I don't know anything about how well early returns predict future outcomes. Does anyone know what type of salt I should be taking this data with?

Paranoid Fantasies

Like Kevin Drum, I am loathe to comment on the whole John Kerry flap. Kerry's apologized...again, and there really wasn't any story here in the first place. It's self-evidently obvious that Kerry meant his comment as an attack on the Bush administration (that they, because they didn't concentrate on their studies, got us stuck in Iraq), which not only is a plausible reading of the text as is, but is verified by common sense and the original copy of the speech.

But the real reason I'm not commenting is because it's impossible to respond to the conservative argument here. I was on my political radio show, and it was quite clear. They genuinely, truly believe that Kerry--reflecting what they imagine is a common liberal belief--really disrespects the troops and finally let it slide in a moment of political weakness. The fact that Kerry is a vet? Irrelevant. The text of his actual speech which shows verifies his stated intended argument? Immaterial. The recognition that insulting the troops is political suicide for any politician any time, any where? Unconvincing. They've got a paranoid fantasy about what Democrats believe, and they'll stick to it through hell or high water.

There's nothing more I can say other than that they're wrong. And if they weren't so committed to their visions of the evil scary liberal demon, they might get that.

Happy Halloween!

May failed wars, limitless deficits, genocide in Sudan, immoral tax policies, hatred for homosexuals, environmental catastrophes, torture, and violence throughout the world scare you a lot less than they deserve to.

Law & Battlestar Galatica

Cross-Posted at First Movers

Chris Borgen thinks Battlestar is ripe for legal analysis (akin to that accorded to Star Trek or perhaps Harry Potter).

I don't watch the show, but I actually do think he's on to something. I wrote in my very first post at First Movers that legal scholars should pay more attention to how law is perceived by those unschooled in law. As Borgen notes, literature (defined broadly here--film, TV, etc. counts) can give interesting counter-factuals that press us on some of our important moral (including legal) commitments. As for myself, I'm interested in what issues are not not interrogated, what aspects of human interaction, society, structure, etc. are taken to be so fundamental that they are just assumed even in worlds that are otherwise taken to be wildly different. In Harry Potter, for example, the presence of Christianity is very revealing given the great pains Rowling takes to separate the Muggle and Wizarding world.

So, do any of my lovely cohorts have the opening salvo in the emerging Law and BSG genre?

Cardin/Steele Debate

Oliver Willis has clips up of the Steele/Cardin debate on Meet the Press. Willis is a Dem, so I'd imagine the clips are edited to favor Cardin. Still, I think they do provide some good insights on the dynamics of this race.

Steele is a very, very, good speaker and has strong political skills. His ads are unique and effective (in a way it's unfortunate that he "will chiefly be remembered after the elections for an amusing television ad in which he espoused his love of dogs."), and I give him credit for a great campaign. In many other states, including some blue ones, he'd be a force to be reckoned with. But, as Willis points out, Maryland voters possess unusual political savvy. We do tend to privilege substance over style, and we are quite willing to elect the type of thoughtful, policy-minded wonks that are necessary to pass the best laws for the nation, not for flashy campaign ads.

This isn't to say Steele is running a bad campaign--I can't think of another route he could go given how far out of sync his views are with the median Maryland voter. And it is not an attack on Steele's intellect, either--he comes off as a very thoughtful man who thinks wrong on many issues. But it is a credit to my home state that we can see past the flash and recognize that Ben Cardin is a better choice to reflect our ideals and our values.

"Mistakes Were Made"

One of my best Professors, a Religion and Judaic Studies specialist here at Carleton, once remarked on the propensity of bureaucrats to use the passive voice. "If you want to avoid accountability for someting, always use the passive voice."

The context for the discussion was on how the US State Department responded to pleas by the American Jewish community to more forcifully address--rhetorically, militarily, any way at all--the Holocaust during WWII. The responses were all in the passive voice: "reservations were expressed", "the issue was raised", "proposals were taken under consideration." No trail, no specifics, no actor, no agent, no nothing. And, sure enough, the US continued to downplay the genocide occurring--refusing to allow in Jewish refugees, not bombing tracks leading to death camps--until it was far too late.

The Holocaust is an extreme example, meant only to show just what this rhetorical tactic can be made to justify (or, more accurately, ignore). I suppose it shouldn't surprise us, then, when it pops up in compartively lighter situations. NATO General David Richards admitted that "mistakes were made" in a NATO strike that killed 70 Afghani civilians. Begging the General's pardon, but "mistakes weren't made", someone made mistakes. Finding that someone or someones and why they made their mistake or mistakes is a moral imperative when you have that many innocent lives on your hands. The NATO Supreme Commander, James Jones, promised a thorough investigation, but this type of bureaucratic obfuscation is not a promising start.

It's late, I'm tired, and this was probably an unjustified rant. Sometimes the passive voice is just the passive voice. But I am sick of this culture of unaccountability, and I am sick of not being able to detect a pulse among the polity to the end of holding people accountable for their sins. Something needs to change.

Take That, Rewind Brownback

Sammy B's got the voice that make my head go smack.

The Senator from Kansas is blocking a federal appellate court judge nominaton because the nominee attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian friend. She didn't officiate, it had no legal standing, she participated in no legal or judicial capacity, and she's made this very clear to the Senator. In her words, "The ceremony, which was entirely private, took place in Massachusetts, where I had no authority to act in any official capacity and where, in any event, the ceremony had no legal effect" (she is a Michigan judge). One of the women involved had lived next-door to her family for decades. Yet the erst-while bold advocate for "up-or-down votes" continues to hold the nomination up.

Kevin Drum says that Brownback is trying to strip James Inhofe of the "worst Senator" title. A while back, I specifically put the Oklahoma delegation ahead of the Kansas set for worst Senate delegation. I also wrote an article urging Democrats to Be Like Sam on the topic of human rights.

That being said, this story reminds us that he is and remains a nut.

French Role in Rwandan Genocide

International Law specialist Julien Ku reports that Rwanda is looking into evidence of French involvement in the 1994 genocide there. This is the second report of a nation revisiting foreign involvement in a 1994 atrocity this week.

Most of the allegations refer to the French training the participating militias who engaged in the killing, or standing aside and giving the killers access to their victims. However, perhaps the most shocking claim is that French helicopters specifically airlifted people out of the cities to be executed in isolated forests.

France is apparently cooperating with the probe, which is good news.

Arrest Warrant For Ex-Iranian President

And it's not from Israel. It's from Argentina, relating to the 1994 Hezbollah attack on a Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed dozens:

Argentine prosecutors on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order the arrest of former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center that killed scores of people.

Prosecutor Alberto Nisman told a news conference that the decision to attack the center "was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of Iran."

He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah.

The bombing of the Jewish cultural center was the worst terrorist attack on Argentine soil. Eighty-five people were killed and more than 200 others injured when an explosive-laden vehicle was driven near the building and detonated.

Iran's government has vehemently denied any involvement in the bombing, following repeated accusations by Jewish community leaders and others here. Iranian authorities in Buenos Aires declined to comment.

Prosecutors urged the judge to seek international and national arrest orders for Rafsanjani, who was Iran's president from 1989 to 1997. They also asked the judge to detain former intelligence chief Ali Fallahijan and former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati.

In addition, they urged the arrest of two former commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, two former Iranian diplomats and a former Hezbollah security chief.

Wow. Wow.

I don't have any data on it, but I imagine its spectacularly rare for a country to make such a bold move unless it has really strong evidence on the matter. Notions of international propriety and sovereignty generally preclude putting out an arrest warrant on another nation's leaders. Argentina clearly feels like it has enough data on the matter so it's willing to take the diplomatic hit.

Rafsanjani is apparently considered a moderate in Iranian politics, which just goes to show you what passes for moderation in the Tehran regime today.

Meanwhile, Modernity Blog reminds me to ask for comments from the "We Are All Hezbollah Now" protest wing.

Lest we get too excited, the proceeding judge does not have to act on this recommendation immediately, or indeed, under any time limitation. And since the suspects are not in Argentina, the call is for an international arrest warrant, which would require foreign compliance. This obviously will not be forthcoming. So I don't expect any actual trial to go forward. But hopefully this will be another data point in showing that the Iranian government is not anti-Zionist, but anti-Semitic.

Obama's Record

Given my well-known adoration of the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, it would be fair if some of my readers wondered if, to use to the current President's parlance, he might be "all hat and no cattle." Well, Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a round-up of Sen. Obama's key initiatives since entering congress. She identifies four issues particularly praise-worthy, both on substance and because they tend to not get the attention they should. They are non-proliferation, Avian Flu (before it was a hot topic!), regulating genetic testing, and reducing medical malpractice suits without harming the rights of legitimate plaintiffs. As for the rest, well, decide for yourself:

-A "health care for hybrids" bill (previously blogged upon here)

-An Energy Security Bill

-Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA

-A public database of all federal spending and contracts

-Trying to raise CAFE standards

-Veterans' health care

-Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal

-A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.

-A proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.

-Introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information.

-Legislation on chemical plant security.

-Legislation on lead paint.

Hilzoy identifies several themes latent in how Obama approaches legislation:

I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.

Hilzoy's post is chock full of links that I don't provide, so I recommend the whole thing. I'm with Hilzoy, the wonk in me loves seeing a high-profile figure work so hard at getting legislation passed on issues that are important even if they don't hit the news waves. That shows he cares more about the good of the country than the good of his next press release. That's what I want in leader. That's what I want, dare I say, in a President.

Follow the Leader

The UN is having trouble pressuring countries to stop torture. Why? Because these countries claim they're only doing what the US is doing.

Steve Benen had the heads up, and notes sadly that only a few years ago we could condemn these people with a straight face. No longer. Now their sins are on our heads too. Over a year ago I lamented this:

For better or for worse, the US is a beacon. Other countries look to us to understand what freedom and democracy means. That is a privilege that the US has earned over years of being the world's most consistent shining light for humanity. But it comes with a heavy responsibility, to conduct ourselves within the most scrupulous ethical guidelines, to not take the easy way out, to try an elevate the status of moral behavior around the world rather than depressing it and/or trying to get away with the absolute bare minimum. When the world sees America the Free locking up persons in isolated detention camps with no trials, no attorneys, and no rights, is it any wonder that they go back and do the same?

So it goes.

Minnesota Ailments

I love Minnesota, but one of the few drawbacks of livng here is that I seem to get sick very easily in the climate here. My allergies are a constant problem, and on top of that I usually catch some form of nasty cold at least a few times a term.

The good new is that I have a pretty well developed response to sickness--I sleep. I am a crack sleeper--if I were a superhero, it would easily be my superpower. I can do it any time, for any length, anywhere. So last night, when I started to feel a bit under the weather, I thought: "Aha! I'll just get to bed, have a nice night's sleep, and wake up tommorrow refreshed and ready!"

I then proceeded to go to bed. And stare at the ceiling for the next eight hours.

Insomnia! Curses!

I finally did fall asleep at 9:30 AM, which pretty much destroyed any hope of me attending classes today. Fortunately, when I was telling this story at dinner, I got some good advice on my dilemma. A friend of mine, known only by her shadowy moniker of "K-Bar", suggested some Benadryl. Where might I find some? Well, it just so happens K-Bar might have a container full of it in her backpack. Would I like some?

I know, I know, this is how addictions start, but I was desparate. So I have four pills of Benadryl (two at a time, six hours between doses) sitting in my room now. And K-Bar has probably expanded her undoubtedly massive drug dealing empire by one Carleton student.

Actually, K-Bar is a Student Wellness Advisor, so I'm skeptical she actually is the local drug kingpin. Indeed, knowing what I know about K-Bar, I'd label it extraordinarily improbable. But "shadowy figure named K-Bar offers some pills she just 'happens' to have lying around" makes a better story than "Friend and Student Wellness Advisor offers me some medicine after I get sick." Let nobody say I don't know how to market. Besides, how else did she get the nickname "K-Bar"?

Anyway, thanks K-Bar.

B.D., Doonesbury, and Trudeau

The Washington Post has a fantastic article on Doonesbury's most famous storyline. For those of you who don't know, main character B.D. (the first character to appear in the strip) had his leg blown off in Iraq several years ago. Since then, the strip has followed B.D.'s ardorous recovery and therapy sessions. It's been critically acclaimed from all quarters, including the military, which gave Doonesbury writer Garry Trudeau special access to recovering military amputees.

Must Be Nice...

To be a crook who can fire the cops. Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is under investigation for corruption (a Republican congressman? Corrupt? Shocking!). Lewis has spent over $800,000 in legal fees defending himself. That apparently wasn't enough for him, so he used his committee position to fire the investigators on his case. The committee got rid of 60 of its 76 investigators, some of whom were rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse (by Lewis and others), some of who were on other projects, like Katrina aid abuse. Now they're gone.

Crooked GOPers just keep on one-upping each other. It'd be impressive if it wasn't so depressing.

How Israel Does It

A couple items on the agenda. First, Martin Peretz points us to a stellar editorial by Harvard Law Professors Gabriella Blum and Martha Minow. Like Peretz, I am unfamiliar with Blum, but know (of) Minow. Her book, "Making All The Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law" ranks as one of my all time favorites, and her work on genocide and post-conflict resolution issues has been superb. All and all, she is a cutting-edge liberal legal theorist and someone with mucho credibility.

Anyway, Blum and Minow call the US out on our appalling detainee treatment bill by referring us to the example of...Israel, which is a) under a significantly higher risk of attack and b) has far, far more human rights protections for its detainees than we do. If they can abide by basic norms of procedural protections, why can't we? Blum and Minow elaborate on the Israeli policy:

Unlike the US bill , the Israeli law provides for a first hearing of the detainee before a high-ranking officer immediately upon his detention; a detainee has a right to legal representation; a first judicial review of the detention warrant has to take place in a district court no longer than 14 days after the first arrest, and every six months thereafter; and the detainee can appeal his detention before a Supreme Court judge. The court must revoke the detention order if it finds that the release of the detainee would not threaten national security or if there are other special reasons that justify it.

Regulations promulgated under the law stipulate conditions for detention. These include provisions on medical treatment, clothing, food (including the right to purchase items in a canteen), outdoor exercises, religious practices, correspondence with the outside world, and even cigarettes. Unlike the US bill, in Israel, the detainee also has a right to meet with representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The chief of general staff can permit other visitors, such as family members.

The rules are slightly different for Palestinians held from the West Bank, but they too are (to quote Peretz now) "either tried by criminal courts or detained by administration detention. In either case, these prisoners' detention is reviewed every three or six months, also with a right of appeal to a Supreme Court justice."

One can argue that this isn't ideal, but it surely represents a better way of handling this situation than the Bush administration "screw rights, we talking about terrorism!" approach. Israel is in a far more precarious state than we are, and yet it managed to pass a detainee treatment law liberals here can only dream of. When it comes to detainee treatment, the left would do well to push America to emulate the Israeli model.

Second, the US is pushing Israel to relax restrictions on Arab-Americans visiting the Palestinian territories. Which is good--I am not a fan of these increased restrictions, which don't seem to be justified by whatever marginal security benefits might flow from it. The bad part is how we're phrasing the request:

"They are being treated as Arabs and not Americans," one senior official said. "They basically treat them as second-class citizens."

I see. How dare they treat these law abiding Americans as if they were Arab? The horror! The shame! No wonder Israel doesn't give them any rights. If they only knew this people were Americans this whole mess could have been avoided.

I humbly submit that all persons, regardless of race or background, should be treated like first-class citizens no matter where they live. Insofar as these restrictions are justified, they are justified applying to all persons traveling to the Palestinian territories, regardless of background (which is why blanket, race-based prohibitions are not justifiable). Certainly, there are good reasons why Israel might want to restrict some people (primarily but not exclusively Arab) from traveling to the Palestinian territories. There are plenty more people who do not fall within those "good reasons", and they should be given the chance to travel, American or not.

Finally, a New Republic article lays the groundwork for a possible emerging Saudi-Israel alliance. I've actually heard whispers in this direction myself--much of it stemming out of the surprisingly pro-Israel response that come out of the Arab nation during the start of the most recent Israel/Lebanon conflict. The article claims that a full-blown public bond is still far-fetched (but, then, it was for Israel and Egypt as well). However, both Israel and Saudi Arabia share a fear of growing Iranian hegemony, as well as a fair amount of other regional interests in common. Saudi Arabia seems ready to revive talks on their stalled 2002 peace plan, and Israel has become more vocal in its openness to talks with the country.

All of which is to say, very little concrete has manifested itself...yet. But the pieces are moving into position, and this could revolutionize Middle East politics as we've known it.

Brick Wall

I never thought I'd say, but kudos to Bill O'Reilly. He questioned Bush quite aggressively about waterboarding, and didn't back down. Andrew Sullivan has the excerpt.

His superb efforts notwithstanding, O'Reilly did not get any actual information out of the obfuscator-in-chief. Bush almost comically defiant in answering O'Reilly's questions.

O'REILLY: Now Brian Ross of ABC said — reported the CIA water boarded Mohammed. That is dunked him in water, tied him down and then that broke him. Is that true?

BUSH: We don't talk about techniques. And the reason we don't talk about techniques is because we don't want the enemy to be able to adjust. We're in a war.

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

Re-read the answer to that last question. Question: How can the public judge your policy if you refuse to tell us what your policy is? Answer: "You can rest assured" we won't tell you the policy!

Gosh, I'll rest easy! That's not an answer, that's Bush telling me he won't answer and I better like it, dammit! I suppose I should thank him for the privilege that he deigned to tell me that much.

Of course, substantively, Sullivan notes that any terror suspect who hasn't figured out that waterboarding is a possibility is a moron. So Bush's refusal to say exactly what policies he is implementing "to make America safer" isn't because it's a security risk. It's because Bush has a pathological fear of oversight. And given some of the abuses that haoccurredred and have been endorsed under his watch, I'd say he has good reason to fear.

Fighting Terrorists and Dark Wizards

I know I'm not the first blogger to link to Rick Santorum's rather ludicrous "Eye of Mordor" article. I love The Lord of the Rings as much as anyone, but I'm not sure I want to create foreign policy around it. But anyway, that isn't the point. I just want to express my amazement at a particular argument I've heard made that I think has serious moral problems. Rick isn't the only one whose made it by any means, but he certainly framed it more colorfully than most:

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," Santorum continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

Generally, the more sober version of the argument is the classic "better to fight terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home." (Or as a classic Doonesbury had an Iraq-deployed soldier question Bush "You really think Iraqi troops are poised to invade Yankton, South Dakota....I mean, yes, better here than in Yankton, sir!"). The problem with this line of reasoning, from a moral perspective, is it basically justifies plunging any random country into chaos and destruction so they have to bear the brunt of al-Qaeda's assualt instead of us. It effectively uses Iraqi civilians as human shields in our conflict with terrorism. If the terrorists who would have been attacking America are now attacking Iraq, then the counterfactual is that if we weren't in Iraq, the terrorists wouldn't be attacking Iraqi civilians either (because they'd be fighting us here). Now, like Garry Trudeau's soldier, I'm skeptical that Salafist radicals were poised to attack Yankton. But, under this line of argument, the reason we should be celebrating the Iraq war is because it's worthless Iraqis who are dying, not precious America lives. That's wrong morally, and utterly demolishes any claim these advocates have that we truly care about the prosperity and well-being of the Iraqi people.