Omar al-Baghdadi, a leader in the “Islamic State of Iraq” al-Qaeda franchise who the US military said was dead, apparently isn’t dead, and is threatening Iran with reprisals if Teheran doesn’t stop meddling in Iraq. This via Greg Djerejian who suggests we dispatch Norm Podhoretz to handle the diplomatic outreach. I feel like Michael Ledeen needs to get involved somehow.

John McCain on the need to leave Haiti now:

In my view, we need to fight the voodoofascists in Port au Prince or we’ll be fighting them in Portland.

Norman Podhoretz joins Rudy Giuliani’s campaign as a senior foreign policy advisor.

Yes, this Norm Podhoretz:

The one who wants to launch an unprovoked unilateral military attack on Iran.

Two points. One is that even though the Romney campaign keeps failing to trumpet my endorsement of Multiple Choice Mitt as the least-bad Republican contender, it’s still true. The other is that you should think about what would happen if it turned out that Ahmadenijad’s senior foreign policy adviser had recently published an article called “The Case for Bombing the United States of America.”. People would be freaking out, no?

I agree with Brad DeLong: The Democratic proposal to slap a punitive tax on Chinese goods and the people who buy them unless the People’s Republic re-values its currency to something the US Congress is happy with is a bad idea, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shouldn’t be supporting it. As Brad says, it’s “a classic threat to shoot ourselves in the foot.”

Now where I tend to lose the plot is this. If mainstream economists like Brad think it’s a bad idea to use threats of tariffs to push China into changing its exchange-rate policies, how come the economics mainstream seems to have so few complaints about the fact that it’s completely normal for US trade negotiators to use exactly this sort of leverage to try to get other countries to change the intellectual properties policies or to privatize their water systems or what have you? Why is the threat to shoot ourselves in the foot okay when made on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and movie studios, but not when made on behalf of import-competing manufacturers? Often when I see this argument made, I feel like the point is — aha! hypocrites! you should support our China bill after all! — but I really do think Brad’s right, this is a bad bill. But by the same token, the people who complain about this sort of thing ought to complain about the other sort of thing as well.

Photo by SEIU International used under a Creative Commons license

Close reading with Spencer Ackerman. The key line: “Instead of operating under a U.N. mandate, the United States would negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government for a smaller, long-term presence.”

Following up on yesterday’s lead-blogging, Brad Plumer did a post that included this fun factoid: “In Pakistan, some 80 percent of children have dangerous levels of lead in their bloodstream, which in turn affects childhood development and, presumably, intelligence.”

Now since the Bush administration is very concerned about Pakistan, this would seem like an obvious area where we could try to help out, which would be good on its own terms and also perhaps strengthen the hand of those in Pakistan inclined to adopt policies that we’re inclined to favor. On the other hand “The Bush administration loves lead. Loves it.”

They want it everywhere. Okay, that’s only a slight exaggeration: Back in 2002, the White House tried to stack an advisory committee on lead regulations with industry types. Last December, the administration announced that it would consider doing away with the standards that cut lead from gasoline, at the behest of battery makers and lead smelters. And its EPA has weakened a rule on removing lead paint from older residences. All that research on the toxic effects of lead exposure? Eh, who needs it.

So you can hardly expect an ambitious effort from them — it would involve conceding that widespread lead poison constitutes a serious social problem, and you can’t have that.

Photo by Flickr user Babasteve used under a Creative Commons license