Oh, the problems that arise when you let the natives rule themselves! The Bush administration is finding out the hard way that even hand-picked Iraqi lackeys are eager to sabotage US foreign policy goals (in this case, the plundering of the US Treasury to enrich Bush campaign contributors). In the past two weeks, members of the Iraqi Governing Council have been making the rounds in Washington DC, meeting with senators reviewing the $87 billion Iraq spending bill now making its way through Congress, and telling them that they should save their money because the Pentagon is running through it like water. One example: Viceroy Paul Bremer sends his laundry to be done in Kuwait for "security reasons." The 25 Iraqi Governing Council members were so disgusted with the $5,000-per-day contract Bremer set up to provide food for them that they canceled his contract and negotiated their own with a cheaper supplier. They've been telling congressmen that Iraqi contractors could rebuild Iraqi infrastructure for one-tenth the cost that the Bush administration has estimated for US, Saudi, and Kuwaiti contractors. "Where they spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 million," said Ahmad al-Barak, a human rights lawyer and member of the council. Of course, they also pointed out that it would be cheaper in the long run to just let Iraqis govern themselves, the sooner the better. That's a message that the Bush administration has been trying desperately to suppress, and it's difficult to tell right now whether they just don't want to admit that the French were right or if Bush & Co. are secretly crying over losing all those enormous reconstruction contracts with their big, fat profit margins. Probably it's a combination of both sins: greed and overweening pride.--Maria Tomchick. Source: "Iraqi Leaders to Press Congress for Control Over Rebuilding," Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 9/22/03.

...Not that the current crop of "Iraqi leaders" is anything to get excited about. September was the month for Ahmed Chalabi to take the reins as President of the Governing Council. Folks might remember Chalabi as the crook who was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan and who had to sneak out of the country in the trunk of a car to avoid a long prison sentence. Now a leak from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency asserts that the US government paid Ahmed Chalabi over $1 million for useless intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi, it turns out, is the guy who put the Pentagon in contact with about six Iraqi defectors in late 2002 and early 2003. Much of Bush's case for war in Iraq rested on what these defectors told the civilian leaders at the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith). Of the information the defectors provided, no more than one-third of it was potentially useful, and even those leads turned out to be dead ends when checked against other sources. That makes Chalabi a fraud (something we already knew, but the morons at the Pentagon couldn't grasp) and a sleazy manipulator (something we could easily infer, but which probably endeared him to his Pentagon handlers). Last week, after making the rounds of Senate luncheons, Chalabi managed to ooze his way into a speaking engagement before the UN Assembly--a spot usually reserved only for heads of state. Since it was the first week of October, his one-month Presidential turn was already ended, but nobody stopped him. Now that Akila al-Hashimi is dead, there are no seasoned diplomats left on the Governing Council to keep a leash on him; Adnan Pachachi is obviously too old and tired to even give a damn. In fact, if I were an Iraqi policeman, I might take a second look at the assumption that Akila al-Hashimi was shot by former Baathists. I'd ask myself if maybe a few of Chalabi's men could have been responsible for her demise, given that she was the leading candidate to represent the Governing Council at the UN.--M.T. Source: "US paid $1m for 'useless intelligence' from Chalabi," Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, 9/30/03.

Any hopes that a new Iraqi constitution will be drafted soon were dashed last week when the committee appointed to study how a constitution should be drafted shirked its main duty. It threw the decision of how to set up a Constitutional Convention right back to the Iraqi Governing Council for them to squabble over. There are two main factions quarreling over the issue: the Shiites and everyone else. The Shiites want the members of a Constitutional Convention to be elected, because, as the majority population, they would then have the majority of members on the Convention. And, well, it is the democratic way to do things, right? The Kurds, Sunnis, and other minority groups, however, are worried that a Shiite majority would set up an Islamic government similar to Iran's theocratic state. Instead, they want the Governing Council to select lawyers, judges, and representatives (i.e., "experts") to sit on the Constitutional Committee. The Bush administration is worried that an election will make the process drag out for more than a year--well past the six-month deadline Colin Powell has set. However, rejecting an election would be perilous if it alienates the majority Shiite population, which has, so far, been largely supportive of the US occupation forces. It's a sticky issue that could take months to resolve. Maybe even six months. Or more.--M.T.

Hey, here's a story on Iraq that didn't make the network news. According to a major new study released last Thursday, The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath. Even more telling, according to the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes and its new study, you're especially likely to be wrong the more you watch Fox News. Now, before you get too excited, remember that liberals control the universities, just like they control the media. So they're probably lying in another failed attempt to keep you from The Truth. Fox News: We Report, You Decide Erroneously. (And if you want to decide for yourself, the full report, "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War," is at www.pipa.org.)--Geov Parrish

Speaking of the right wing and its well-paid shills, Rush Limbaugh's obnoxious football gaffe last week earned him a lot of probably short-lived outrage over what has become a long pattern of racial, um, insensitivity in his career. But the flap about Rush obscured a far worse instance of racism in the lucrative professional sports world. That would be the decision by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the term "redskin," as in the Washington Redskins football team, has no negative racial connotations.

In her decision, which reversed a lower court's 1999 ruling upholding a challenge to the Redskins' trademark, Kollar-Kotelly committed just about every judicial sin conservatives themselves rail about so often: social activism, bending over for a special interest (in this case a very wealthy football team owner), and above all extreme torture to common sense. The judge's 83-page ruling claimed simultaneously that the term "redskins" is no longer pejorative (a statement that anyone who's ever lived on or near a res knows is preposterous); that the plaintiffs, which had been tied up in court over a decade, had presented evidence that was too old and anecdotal, and that Native Americans had little standings to file the case (!). (Apparently, they, like most racial groups, forgot to trademark their racial identity in a timely manner.)

As the Atlanta Braves tomahawk-chop their way to a possible World Series this month, there's a fresh batch of painful reminders that the cultural stereotyping still donde to Indians - by everyone from big corporations to new age woo-woos - still goes far beyond what would ever be tolerated regarding another racial group. (Limbaugh got in trouble for saying that an African-American player was overrated due to his race.) But the Redskins is a special case: a team name, and merchandising empire, based not just on a racial stereotype but a racial slur. Imagine a league with the Redskins, the Kansas City Dagos, Pittsburgh Kikes, Denver Jungle Bunnies and Miami Wetbacks and you'd about have it. Every time the Redskins play, I have a secret hope that someone hands out smallpox-infested pom-poms.--G.P.

And speaking of Rush, celebrate the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has abused prescription painkillers, but not for the reason you might think. Nobody should gloat about another person's addiction, even if that person is, per Al Franken's styling, a Big Fat Idiot and has himself made a career out of gloating and on-air cruelty. But Limbaugh has inadvertently done conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones, a huge favor by illuminating several issues. First, that our country's attitudes toward medicating pain are badly screwed up--if Limbaugh was in pain, he shouldn't have had to illegally obtain the pills to relieve it. Second, that if he was instead simply feeding an addiction, that demands compassion and health care treatment, not years of mandatory sentencing in jail. And third and perhaps most importantly, that a lot of people with unhealthy addictions still lead perfectly reasonable and responsible lives. Rush's alleged misdeeds occurred while he appeared on hundreds of radio stations for hours each day, managed a multi-million dollar media empire, and moved as a major political force in his own right in conservative circles. Addiction is a health problem, but if it's not disrupting your life or anyone else's, why should anyone else (let alone the state) care?

The upshot: Rush Limbaugh's case may help convince enough conservatives once and for all of the sheer public policy lunacy of the War on Drugs. There's new hope some of its most odious pieces can be overturned, and soon. Thanks, Rush. Now shut up.--G.P.