Via the resplendently named Matthew Yglesias comes an interesting excerpt from the SSCI report on pre-war intelligence about Iraq:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or presssure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted paragraph]

[Redacted paragraph]

[Redacted paragraph]

[Page break]

[Redacted paragraph]

[Redacted paragraph]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

[Redacted paragraph]

[Redacted paragraph]

[End of pressure discussion]

As Matthew says, the case is airtight!

Here’s something I just sent to my Senator (though I got rid of the bit in brackets in the first paragraph before I hit send, as I didn’t think it quite set the tone)

Mr Coleman,

I’m writing to you about the upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment to ban ‘gay marriage’. It’s an amendment I believe you support (it’s hard to tell, as while it’s important enough to warrant a modification of the most sacred document this country has, it apparently isn’t important enough to make it on to the ‘Issues’ list on your website yet). You may have guessed already that I oppose the amendment, but I’m not writing to try to change your opinion.

The current wording is claimed to be in defense of marriage, rather than an attack on select members of our community. If that’s true then please introduce an amendment to the text to back up the defense of real marriages. What about:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman, for life”?

I appreciate that this would inconvenience the thrice-married Bob Barr, chief sponsor of DOMA,, among many others on both sides of the debate. But we are talking about marriage, “the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society and the defining promise of a life” as the President said in his recent radio address. If it really is “the defining promise of a life” shouldn’t we include in the constitution language that reflects that?

Yours respectfully,
Paul Harris
St Louis Park, MN

(no reply is required, though I will be glad to hear your comments)

{title link}

The Government is looking at ways to postpone the November elections. I’m sure conspiracy theorists will be all over this, though I think they’d be wrong. Nonetheless this is a bad idea, as someone immeasurably wiser than I once said:

“We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”