The New York Times story is getting the buzz:

The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

“This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”

Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins’ Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

Scott L. Silliman, the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law, points out that this once again gets into Blackwater’s legal gray areas, what I like to refer to as legal mud. As I’ve previously written, that legal mud may even get Blackwater off the hook for last year’s massacre of seventeen Iraqi civilians. As the Washington Post reported, in November:

FBI investigators have reportedly concluded that the killing of 14 of the 17 civilians was unjustified under State Department rules on the use of force. But the case is muddied by the question of what laws, if any, apply to security contractors operating under military, State Department and civilian contracts.

If massacring civilians is one of those areas of legal mud, don’t expect any legal clarity for gassing American soldiers. The question, then, was whether laws applying to private contractors working for the Defense Department also apply to contractors working for the State Department. And although the military has brought charges against numerous official service personnel, they have brought none against private security contractors. Because whether or not mass murder is legal depends on who is doing the mass murdering, and for whom they work.  

Realistically, the Iowa Caucuses are a ridiculous measure of the electorate. It’s a massively flawed system in an absurdly unrepresentative state. But none of that matters. What matters is how the media spin it, and what happened tonight will be easy for their simplistic framing: Obama won big, Hillary sputtered to a weak third place, not even breaking 30%. Edwards really needed to win, and didn’t.

Keep an eye on the New Hampshire polls. The media want this to give Obama a big bump. It probably will. The size of his win in this massively flawed system in this absurdly unrepresentative state makes him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Hillary polls far ahead, in later states, but that could quickly erode. The pressure is on her to do much better in New Hampshire. Even a close loss might not be enough. If Obama carries this big win into a second win, next week, he may be unstoppable.

It’s tough to see where Edwards goes, from here. He’s not polling well in New Hampshire or South Carolina, and he needed a big boost, to get any traction in either. He didn’t get it. His campaign is in serious trouble. Should he be out, after South Carolina, it will be interesting to see what his supporters do. None are more passionate. If they move as a bloc, they could make the difference.

Obama’s centrist strategy worked, in Iowa. It’s not popular with many die-hard liberals. If the only alternative turns out to be Hillary, where do they go? Obama also proved enormously inspiring to young voters. Should he win the nomination, they could help sweep Democrats into all levels of offices. Such a Democratic landslide could mean a much more liberal Obama Administration than many now fear.

In the end, though, this race is far from over. Bill Clinton was known as the Comeback Kid. We’ll now find out if Hillary has similar skill and tenacity. She won’t go down easily.  

David Yepsen, of the Des Moines Register, is the most respected political analyst in Iowa. Tucked into his analysis of the new Register poll, which shows Barack Obama breaking out to a legitimate lead, is a little nugget that succinctly explains why Iowa should not matter.

A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren’t all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans. (Technically, they’ll all have to re-register as Democrats to participate, but that can be done at the caucus site.) Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they’re Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.

In other words, the caucus that could launch or break campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination will be largely determined by people who do not represent the Democratic Party. This should be a stop-the-presses headline, and it should be the number one point emphasized by all who truly care about the Democratic Party. Iowa is officially a farce!

Accusations, riots, and political instability are among the immediate reactions to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Here’s a roundup.

Talking Points Memo:

A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto’s death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.

After an October attack on Bhutto’s life in Karachi, the ex-prime minister warned “certain individuals in the security establishment [about the threat] and nothing was done,” says Husain Haqqani, a confidante of Bhutto’s for decades. “There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She’s not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces.”

Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. “It’s like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing,” he says. “It’s quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan’s Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do.”

Times of India:

The immediate finger of suspicion though pointed to Pakistan’s security establishment. A key Benazir aide said the country’s military government had much to answer for the assassination because it had not met certain security arrangements required and officials were “dismissive” about Bhutto’s requests in this regard.

“They could have provided better security. Even the equipment they gave consistently malfunctioned. Bhutto had asked for independent security arrangements,” Hussain Haqqani, a US-based former Bhutto aide told CNN .

Haqqani and other analysts like Peter Bergen also pointed out that the attack took place in Rawalpindi, the military garrison town outside Islamabad that is crawling with security personnel and spooks. The fact that she had been shot dead following up a suicide bombing pointed to a concerted effort to finish her off.

Haqqani said he had spoken to Benazir two days ago and she was concerned about the security arrangement and the military government’s effort to rig the election.

Because he is against the war, even some Democrats and liberals support Ron Paul’s candidacy for the White House. That’s because they’re not taking a close look at Paul. Unfortunately, it is necessary to help some do that. Fortunately, Paul makes it easy.

Talking Points Memo provides the video:

At Edge of the West, Ari Kelman says:

There are so many things wrong with this line of argument that I don’t even know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do. Let’s begin with: Lincoln didn’t go to war to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.” You have to know even less about history than Tim Russert – I wouldn’t have thought it possible – to say such a ridiculous thing. Or you have to be a bit too willing, eager even, to marry libertarian political ideology with neo-Confederate historical revisionism. Just to be clear: Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. That’s it. End of story. Full stop.

Also: Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. To clarify his position throughout the 1860 campaign and well into 1861, long after he was elected president without his name having appeared on a single Southern ballot, Lincoln said that slavery shoudn’t be allowed to expand into the West – a position that was part of the Republican Party (Paul’s party) platform.

(more)

I’ve written about the real War on Christmas- in Iraq. Well, the New York Times has this, today, from Baghdad:

Inside the beige church guarded by the men with the AK-47s, a choir sang Christmas songs in Arabic. An old woman in black closed her eyes while a girl in a cherry-red dress, with tights and shoes to match, craned her neck toward rows of empty pews near the back.

“Last year it was full,” said Yusef Hanna, a parishioner. “So many people have left – gone up north, or out of the country.”

In a safe neighborhood, in the midst of the relative calm of the current relative downturn in violence, this is still less than a Merry Christmas.

Iraq’s Christians have fared poorly since the fall of Saddam Hussein, with their houses or businesses frequently attacked. Some priests estimate that as much as two-thirds of the community, or about one million people, have fled, making Sacred Heart typical. Though a handful have recently returned from abroad, only 120 people attended Mass on Monday night, down from 400 two years ago.

But, of course, that was in a safe neighborhood. Elsewhere, the violence continues, irrespective of religion or season. The Washington Post reports:

Gunmen stopped a minibus driving north of Baghdad on Monday and abducted 13 Iraqi civilians inside, Iraqi police reported. The mass kidnapping was a renewed tactic that has grown increasingly rare as violence has ebbed in Iraq.

An ominous sign?

(more)

I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory.

An Icelandic woman’s memorable visit.

(h/t The Reaction, via Sott)