Are you concerned about American troops dying in Iraq? In columnist Christopher Hitchens’ eyes, you are part of the problem:

But the truly sobering reflection is that crimes and blunders of this kind are committed, in effect, by popular demand. It is emphasized every day that Americans do not want to read about dead soldiers. So it is arranged that, as far as possible, they will read (or perhaps not bother to read) about dead civilians instead. This is the price that a “body-bag” mentality exacts.

Also, newspapers shouldn’t report on military fatalities. That empowers insurgencies:

Incidentally, when is the New York Times going to start running a “Names of the Dead” regular feature from Afghanistan? And how long will it be, as the Taliban forces try for a comeback, before we hear demands for a deadline for withdrawal from Kabul as well? If “quagmirism” has its logic one way, then it has it the other way, too (unless you don’t believe that retreat also has its quagmires).

It’s amazing how far some will go to blame people other than the Bush administration for the problems in Iraq.

Conservatives Senators are tripping over themselves to claim ideology is off limits in questioning a Supreme Court nominee. History shows that’s not true.

In 1795, President George Washington nominated Justice John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the United States. Rutledge, a former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and current Chief Justice of South Carolina, was “well qualifed” by any standard, but Senate partisans blocked his nomination for one simple reason: ideology. Justice Rutledge opposed the Jay Treaty, a hot button issue in 1795. Because Senate Federalists couldn’t bear to see a Jay Treaty opponent on the Court, Rutledge’s nomination was rejected 14-10.

Unlike President Bush, President Washington respected the right of the Senate to reject judicial nominations. In 1789, Washington had even explained just how free the Senate was to do so: “Just as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs.”

– Ian Millhiser

Here’s a transcript of a Q&A between ITV (UK) and Bush about Iraq:.

Q: You talk about terrorism in Iraq, but when we spoke before the war, there was no terrorism in Iraq. And you’re now making Iraq the front line of the war on terrorism. But the terrorists have only recently arrived there, arrived since the war on Iraq.

BUSH: No, I beg your pardon. Zarqawi, Mr. Zarqawi, who is leading the terrorist effort in Iraq now, was in Iraq prior to our discussion.

Q: No al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, Mr. President.

BUSH: No, Zarqawi, Mr. Zarqawi was, absolutely. He was.

Bush has hung onto this Zarqawi claim as all his other rationales for attacking Iraq have faded. In fact, this claim is as false as the WMD claim. The story of Zarqawi has been a microcosm for how ineptly the whole Iraq conflict has been managed. Here’s a quick CliffsNotes version:

Before the war, Zarqawi was with the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam — “operating in a region outside the control of Saddam” — and setting up sleeper cells to inflame the insurgency. The Bush administration scrapped three plans to kill him at that time.

Once the war was launched, Bush falsely claimed that the relationship between Zarqawi and Hussein was evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda, and thus a rationale for attacking Iraq.

And now, bin Laden has gained a powerful new ally in Zarqawi after first refusing to associate himself with someone who was not a major player. Al Qaeda has now made Iraq into the central front in the war on terror. And Bush says that’s what he was trying to prevent all along.

So many of President Bush’s nominees have been so ideological, it’s easy to forget that the President knows how to find consensus on judges when he wants or needs to. He’s added appeals judges like Richard Wesley from New York, Allyson Duncan from North Carolina, and Carlos Bea from California. Those nominees were all Republicans, and all won support from homestate senators who are Democrats.

It’s telling, and not especially encouraging, that all of these selections were for circuits not up for grabs ideologically. The Second Circuit remains reliably moderate; the Fourth Circuit is extremely conservative; and the Ninth Circuit is so large that single appointments can’t make a huge mark. Bush’s willingness to seek consensus when it doesn’t much matter matters less hardly shows what he’ll do when it does matters most. But it’s something.

UPDATE: In the comments, Rachel made a good point. I’ve updated the post accordingly.

– Robert Gordon

Over the weekend, McLaughlin Group panelist Lawrence O’Donnell revealed that one of the PlameGate sources being protected by Time reporter Matt Cooper is none other than Karl Rove. Below, a few questions for the Mayberry Machiavelli:

What Explains the Suspicious Wording of Your Lawyer’s Statement?

In interviews with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin repeated two points: that 1) Rove “never knowingly disclosed classified information” and 2) that “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.” The wording of this explanation itself raises questions. If point #2 is the whole truth, and Rove never did tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, Luskin would have no need to state point #1, that Rove had not “knowingly disclosed classified information.” So why have Luskin’s statements — which were crafted with the utmost sensitivity, one can be sure — worded the way that they are?

When Did You First Speak to Journalists about Plame?

Though Rove’s involvement in the smear campaign against Wilson and Plame is well known, the timeline is still uncertain. The new statements from Rove’s lawyer only muddy the picture. In October 2003, Rove reportedly admitted to the grand jury “that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding [Plame] with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists,” part of an “aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife.” According to investigative journalist Murray Waas, Rove told the grand jury that “he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in [Robert] Novak’s column.” But according to Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, “Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak’s column appeared.” What, then, did Rove share with Cooper?

UPDATE: More in today’s Progress Report.