Columnist Jonah Goldberg explains what Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay have in common:

Well, there's the obvious stuff. Both have Spanish names. Neither is a great spot for a family vacation. And each is under the control of the federal government.

Oh, and both are essential tools in wars a lot of people claim they want to win.

Boston University's Andrew J. Bacevich argues that Iraq has illustrated the limits of U.S. power and new Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) wants an independent review of the state's revenue. And freelance writer Mary Kolesnikova says KMN (that's "kill me now") in response to a Pew report finding that teens let Internet chat speak into their homework.

The editorial board notes a new study finding that many Iraq veterans suffer from untreated brain injuries, and supports a state bill that would create CalPERS-managed portable retirement plans for private employees. The board also laments the sad state of the Southern California bookstore and the latest one to fall into financial dire straits, Libreria Martinez:

...Libreria Martinez, Santa Ana's nationally honored Latino-themed bookstore, is now threatened. After all, how many booksellers win a MacArthur Foundation genius grant? (Though Rueben Martinez was forced to use some of that $500,000 to pay his store's bills.) For that matter, how odd is it that the landlord forcing the store to move is a charter school for the arts with a well-regarded creative writing program?

On the letters page, readers react to the notion that Barack Obama's biggest problem is his elitism, not his race. Long Beach's Charles Q. Clay III says, "Hogwash! Obama has exactly half as many Ivy League degrees as our current president, who, you might recall, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was not raised by a single mother on food stamps."

Newsweek correspondent and author Michael Hastings knows too well that war is more than statistics:

While I was in Iraq covering the war for Newsweek for two years starting in 2005, the woman I planned to marry was murdered in Baghdad by insurgents on Jan. 17, 2007. Her name was Andi Parhamovich; she'd come to Iraq to work for the National Democratic Institute, an NGO....

We -- Andi, me, Jeff, Greg, Scott, Ferris -- all chose to go to Iraq, volunteers for our respective causes. We were under no illusions about the risks, though that's a glib way of putting it. I don't think anyone can fully grasp the risks until whoosh, wham, through the looking glass you crash on the way to the rehab center at Walter Reed or a funeral parlor in Ohio.

Iraq often gets treated by pundits, writers and politicians -- all those thoughtful cheerleaders turned war critics -- as an intellectual exercise. It's not.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez reports that people will often ignore their self interest if they can get a fair deal. And New Republic assistant editor James Kirchick says South African President Thabo Mbeki shouldn't stand by as Robert Mugabe ruins Zimbabwe.

The editorial board says no on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99, and asks why phone customers should have to pay to keep their numbers unlisted.

On the letters page, Long Beach's Iris Ingram says to those who would ask Hillary Clinton to quit the race: "The primary season ends in June. So suck it up and stick it out."

Tomdispatch.com associate editor Nick Turse shows how consumer firms like Apple and Krispy Kreme profit from Iraq, and columnist Joel Stein scores some (prescription) marijuana:

Sometimes I can't believe how Californian California is. Women walk around half-naked, waiters call patrons "dude," and medical marijuana is legal. But I wondered just how legal. Could anyone buy it? Even me, who doesn't have cancer, AIDS, arthritis, glaucoma or even any previous pot-smoking experience?

Medical marijuana isn't really legal -- in 2005, the Supreme Court said federal anti-drug laws trump state laws -- but California and 11 other hippie states have been flipping off Washington for years.

The editorial board criticizes President Bush for failing to hold the Reading First program accountable, and says California's misuse of the recall process may be one reason the state is in such bad shape.

Readers discuss the election, and whether Hillary Clinton should quit. Palm Springs' Eleanor Jackson wonders, "It's difficult to understand how anyone, particularly a Democrat or independent voter, can dislike Clinton (or for that matter, Obama) so much that they would be willing to not vote or vote for John McCain. Do they not realize the consequences of a Republican victory this November?"

Big Sunday founder David T. Levinson reflects on the idiosyncrasies of pop volunteerism, and Ronald Brownstein picks apart John McCain's true views on the U.S. military's future in Iraq. Merrick J. Bob, executive director of the Police Assessment Resource Center, investigates better ways to track racial profiling by LAPD officers, and cartoonist Rob Rogers snarks at Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's problem relationships. Joel Stein finds out that a new citizen's vote is worth $6 and a cookie:

There's an emotional ceremony every month in which 3,500 newly naturalized citizens pledge their loyalty to the United States, and it really feels like they've joined a community of shared values, goals and purpose. Then, as soon as they pass through the gates of the L.A. County fairgrounds and enter the parking lot, they are charged from the right by Republicans and from the left by Democrats, begging them to register to vote. It is a bit like kissing the bride and being told your new father-in-law is a Capulet and your mother-in-law's a Montague and they've each registered you for a Glock.

The editorial board calls for the Supreme Court to let a murder victim's posthumous testimony stand, and wonders how to turn the beleaguered Santa Barbara Plaza project around. The board also whips out its pen to defend taco trucks against a new L.A. County ordinance:

Supervisors may have expected the new law to attract little controversy; after all, it was backed by Eastside restaurateurs and developers, a group with considerably more money and political power than the largely immigrant entrepreneurs who own taco trucks. But it has raised the ire of a far larger group: the thousands of Angelenos who have long gathered at taco trucks, in many cases since childhood, for quick carnitas burritos or mouthwatering cemitas, central Mexican sandwiches filled with avocado, cheese, fried meat and other gut-busting goodness. An Internet-driven movement started by a pair of Highland Park residents has already produced 2,200 signatures on a petition to repeal the law. Sign us up too.

Readers also react to the LAPD's dismissal of all complaints of racial profiling from last year. Leni Fleming writes:

"Los Angeles Police Department officials announced Tuesday that they investigated more than 300 complaints of racial profiling against officers last year and found that none had merit" is, bar none, the most hilarious sentence I have ever read in The Times.

And I'm white!

Right-wing Dutch politicos-turned-producers watch out — free speech cuts both ways. From NPR:

A video portraying aggressive behavior by Christians matched with verses from the Bible is gaining traction on the Internet.

Raed al-Saeed, a young businessman from Saudi Arabia, is the creator of Schism, a six-minute video response to Fitna — a short film released last month that portrays Islam as a violent, fascist-like ideology. "Fitna" provoked anger in many parts of the Muslim world.

In case you don't remember, Fitna (a word meaning "ordeal" in Arabic) overlaid verses from the Quran over acts of violence — suicide bombings, beheadings, planes crashing into the World Trade Center. It was produced by Geert Wilder, a Dutch politician who happens to be unabashedly anti-Islam. Some found the film to be an act of bravery — Jonah Goldberg compared it to the Darwin fish — while Dutch Muslims greeted it with disgusted silence.

Nonetheless, it's interesting to see a response to Wilder's celluloid screed — the point being that you can find nasty bits in many different religious texts, including Christianity. Unfortunately, Saeed didn't find footage of many nasty people saying those verses out loud — and his substitution of the political for the religious (such as images of the bombing of Baghdad and the beating of prisoners) detracts from his point.

But, to my utter surprise, Saeed did strike darkly comic gold with some unassuming Christians whose rhetoric runs pretty close to that of radical Islamists. One woman — who looks like she could have run my preschool daycare — explains , "I wanna see [young people] as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are in over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, because we have — excuse me, but we have the truth!"

And later, at the center of a roomful of kids, upper arms jiggling with righteousness: "Take these prophecies ... and make war with them .... This means war! This means war!"

But Saeed is quick to point out that this video isn't an attack on Christianity or any other religion. The final text of the video reads,

It is easy to take parts of any Holy book that are out of content and make it sound like the most inhuman book ever written. This is what Geert Wilders did to gather more supporters to his hateful ideology. To create schism.

A fair observation, spelling errors aside — and yet, according to NPR,

A day after Saeed posted his video on YouTube, it was taken down for having "inappropriate content." He immediately reposted it with a message arguing that if his video was inappropriate, then Wilders' Fitna also should be removed. For now, both videos are available on the site.

And it still is. Go check it out — there are a few versions up, but the most-watched one has racked up more than 350,000 views so far, and more than 4,000 comments. Looking through what people had to say about Islam and Christianity made me wonder: How many viewers who made generalizations about Islam based on 'Fitna' were fully prepared to give Bible-lady's comments a pass?

And while the film means to make a point about not judging a religion by radicalism, I have to say, those angelic-looking children dancing around with what looks like warpaint on their faces is a little too Lord-of-the-Flies for me to handle.

Columnist Joel Stein makes New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson work for the money:

Impressed by his confidence, his integrity and this vague threat of being around "possibly nationally," I offered Richardson $20 if he'd record my outgoing answering machine message. He immediately agreed. Unfortunately, callers to my house now hear a long speech about how they should give Richardson money instead of the little speech I asked for, which said that even though I wasn't home, he fully endorsed me.

Yale's Laura Frost says forget about FIA president Max Mosley's Nazi role-playing S&M romp, and focus on the post-coital cup of tea. MIT's Lester C. Thurow thinks solutions to high oil prices, the housing crisis, and outsourcing will require some sacrifice.

The editorial board considers the costs of the Iraq war, explores how airlines can get safely back in flight, and praises Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for taking up immigration again.

Readers discuss protests following the Olympic torch. Claremont's Daniel A. Guthrie says, "China's behavior toward Tibet is no different from our behavior. I wish Americans would be as concerned about their own disgraceful past as they are about the behavior of other countries."

Columnist Rosa Brooks reminds everyone that despite the attention on the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton mudslinging, it's the GOP that's losing ground:

Although Democratic Party infighting makes good copy, the intense media focus on the Obama-Clinton battle obscures the fact that it's the Republican Party that's in deep doo-doo. The very factors that make us wish we could forget about the war in Iraq are driving a seismic shift in the American political landscape: the likely reversal of years of GOP electoral dominance.

Speaking of the GOP's losing ground on war issues, former NATO commander Wesley K. Clark and Iraq vet Jon Soltz wonder why John McCain isn't stepping up to support a new GI bill. Columnist Patt Morrison remembers when ethnic campaigning was as simple as eating a knish and spinning pizza dough. And author Daniel Imhoff says the farm bill is too porky. 

The editorial board hopes for stronger rule of law in Pakistan, takes a look at shocking inmate conditions in Orange County jails, and says the Senate's housing relief plan is a mixed fix:

The tax breaks in the Senate bill would help home builders that profited handsomely during the boom. They would also prop up the price of foreclosed properties with $7,000 subsidies for the purchase of those homes. But the goal isn't to stop the boom-and-bust cycle from running its course or causing losses. It's to prevent the bust from being so sudden and severe that it chokes off credit, stifles consumer spending and wrecks the economy.

Readers react to Gen. David H. Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony before Congress. Bob Constantine of Placentia has a suggesetion: "Next time Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress, skip the personal appearances and merely play the tape of the previous testimonies."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger explains why he opposes a bill that would have state's pension systems divest from certain private equity funds because of human rights concerns:

[T]his measure is unlike the legislation I signed with respect to Sudan and Iran. Those measures barred investment in entire countries. AB 1967 instead addresses investment into a relatively small class of investment vehicles. It does not send the same powerful signal to the world, would do little to address human rights and would impose a costly burden on California.

What's more, if anyone thinks this bill will inhibit the ability of questionable sovereign wealth funds to invest, they are fooling themselves. Any sovereign wealth funds covered by this legislation would still be able to invest in the multitrillion-dollar public stock and bond markets around the world.

Author Nancy Altman offers some politically palatable fixes for social security. Writer Matthew DeBord forgets "mission creep" for a bit and worries about Gen. David H. Petraeus' "ribbon creep." And columnist Tim Rutten reminds that Olympic protests historically have been futile.

The editorial board debunks some Special Order 40 myths, asks whether it's worth staying in Iraq to fight a proxy war, and says San Francisco is the perfect forum for protests against China as the torch passes through.

Readers discuss Tim Rutten's column on John Yoo's torture memos. L.A.'s Jerome Argesty says, "This is not a matter of academic freedom: it is a matter of neglecting morality and justice in educating young lawyers."

Columnist Jonah Goldberg argues that a narrow definition of genocide often lets mass murderers off the hook:

This can lead to a dangerous way of thinking in which people who are perceived to be standing in the way of progress -- middle-class farmers opposed to collectivization, aristocrats, reactionaries -- can be more forgivably slaughtered than ethnic groups because they're allegedly part of the problem, not the solution. After all, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet.

In general, the Soviets and the Red Chinese elude the genocide charge -- and hence the status of ultimate villains -- despite having murdered scores of millions of people in the 20th century, in large part because their victims stood in the way of progress.

Historian Martin Meredith laments that Robert Mugabe's hunger for power prevented him from becoming another Nelson Mandela. And contributing editor Max Boot says the U.S. can still win in Iraq if the troops just stay put.

The editorial board encourages Congress to approve a trade pact with Colombia, observes that the Supreme Court will once again consider a display of the Ten Commandments, and wonders if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both obscuring their true feelings on trade.

Readers react to columnist Patt Morrison's piece on billboards in L.A. Culver City's Gene Rothman updates Ogden Nash:

I see again an outdoor panel
It's another from Clear Channel
If from its stock we all withdrew
Perhaps we'd hear another view.

Both pages recall the death of Martin Luther King Jr., 40 years ago today. The editorial board imagines the U.S. if King had lived:

We don't need to canonize King to appreciate his many accomplishments, nor declare time-wasting moratoriums to mourn his passing. He was a complex man with messy personal affairs who unified people of all races on the issue of civil rights, while dividing many with his controversial stance on the Vietnam War.... In the final years of his short life, King became nearly as concerned about the war and the plight of the poor as he was about racial discrimination...if King were alive today (he would have turned 79 on Jan. 15), the fight against poverty would probably be higher on the national political agenda and the opposition to the Iraq war more focused.

Goergetown's Michael Eric Dyson examines King's increasingly angry stance after 1965:

King's skepticism and anger were often muted when he spoke to white America, but they routinely resonated in black sanctuaries and meeting halls across the land. Nothing highlights that split -- or white America's ignorance of it and the prophetic black church King inspired -- more than recalling King's post-1965 odyssey, as he grappled bravely with poverty, war and entrenched racism. That is the King who emerges as we recall the meaning of his death.

And the Op-Ed page features photography of the Lorraine Motel, where King was killed, by Steve Schapiro.

Columnist Joel Stein has learned one thing from the John McCain campaign -- that jokes about the elderly are just fine. And the editorial board praises the House for passing a generous foreign aid package for AIDS patients around the world, and reflects on the Bush Administration's declassified torture memos.

Readers discuss illegal immigration on the letters page. L.A.'s Frank Galvan says, "This article helped put a human face on a population that is too often only considered by many to be just a problem...." But Van Nuys' Phil Hyman retorts, "Pardon me if I"m not breaking down in tears.... Who made them decide to come here illegally in the first place?"

*Photo Steve Schapiro, courtesy Fahey/Klein Gallery, Los Angeles

Georgetown's John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed of Gallup's Center for Muslim Studies says what you don't know about Muslims can hurt you:

How much do Americans know about the views and beliefs of Muslims around the world? According to polls, not much. Perhaps not surprising, the majority of Americans (66%) admit to having at least some prejudice against Muslims; one in five say they have "a great deal" of prejudice. Almost half do not believe American Muslims are "loyal" to this country, and one in four do not want a Muslim as a neighbor.

Why should such anti-Muslim bias concern us? First, it undermines the war on terrorism: Situations are misdiagnosed, root causes are misidentified and bad prescriptions do more harm than good....

The University of Chicago's Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein apply the "choice architecture" of grocery stores and cafeterias to public institutions. Columnist Tim Rutten says functioning anti-gang programs are held hostage in the L.A. City Council's ongoing turf war.

The editorial board reacts to the Zimbabwean election, and finds itself in an unusual position -- agreeing with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Two editorial writers, Eryn Brown and Karin Klein, reflect on human efforts to mimic Mother Nature.

Readers don't agree with Joseph S. Nye Jr's claim that President Bush could be our Woodrow Wilson. See why Sierra Madre's Howard W. Hays says, "I can't think of two figures more dissimilar."

Columnist Jonah Goldberg doesn't like the Darwin fish:

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

Attorney Kelly Valen remembers her encounter with John McCain's autopen. As the Anthony Pellicano case continues, author Will Vaus remembers his father, the original Hollywood wiretapper.

The editorial board applauds efforts to narrow AIDS vaccine research, explores why Mars rovers have so many fans, and explains that the U.S. approach in Basra requires more subtlety.

Readers react to columnist Rosa Brooks' piece warning moms to resist Disney princesses. Valencia's Natasha Wegter asks Brooks not to "punk the princesses," but Monterey Park's Ralph Mitchell thinks "Brooks doesn't go far enough in her objections."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) notes that sexual assaults are frequent -- and frequently ignored -- in the military:

Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq....

At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through "nonjudicial punishment," which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist.

Writer Andrew Gumbel knows why Hillary Clinton is fighting so hard to stay in the race -- because it works. Columnist Gregory Rodriguez says Americans have a habit of hero-worshipping candidates, and it tends to backfire. Euro Pacific Capital President Peter Schiff argues that we need to hit bottom before we can recover from the housing crisis.

The editorial board wants better beef tracking, and more nuanced exploration of the links between race and gangs. The board praises the FCC for taking a broad view of media competition in approving the XM/Sirius merger.

Readers react to a shift in John McCain's rhetoric. L.A.'s Susan North says:

Listening to McCain's speech before the World Affairs Council made my brain hurt. In the speech, he admonished America to listen to our democratic ally nations. Would that be all those same nations that have been crying out, for months now, "Surge? Are you people nuts?"

Is the raging battle for Basra a good thing for the U.S. interests in Iraq? Or is it  a bad thing for the U.S. national interest in getting its troops out of a relatively stable Iraq as quickly as possible? It’s too soon to know, but Americans can be forgiven if they feel more confused after listening to the Orwellian statements emanating from their government.

Until last week, the Bush administration was insisting that the stunning (and real) drop in violence following last summer’s U.S. troop surge was beginning to foster Iraqi political reconciliation.

Last week, as U.S. forces were drawn into heated battles in Baghdad and launched artillery strikes into Basra, the president asserted that the resumption of full-scale warfare between the Shiite-led government and its chief Shiite rivals is a positive development, as it means that the government, led by the unpopular Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, is now strong enough to be able to crack down on the criminal elements in Basra.

So, if there is no fighting in Iraq, that’s proof that the surge is working and U.S. troops should stay to consolidate their gains. And if there is what looks a great deal like the resumption of an intra-ethnic civil war over money, power and control of territory in Baghdad as well as in Basra, then that’s proof that the surge worked, but U.S. troops should stay because there’s more to be done. Got it?

The Democratic-controlled Congress is unlikely to buy this particular piece of spin, however expertly finessed by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker. Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to testify on April 8 and 9. Oddly, April 8 is the new deadline set by Maliki for the “criminal gangs” in Basra to turn over their “heavy and medium-sized weapons” in exchange for unspecified cash rewards. (Maliki had initially given them three days to hand over the weapons, but extended it as the Iraqi military’s effort to retake Basra flounded amid heavier-than-expected opposition.)

Congress should not wait until April 8 to begin demanding answers to the many questions raised by this bloody new turn of events. First, is it true that Maliki did not give his U.S. ally advance notice that he intended to invade Basra? If not, why not?

There are many reasons why Maliki needed to get Basra back under control. Its vital port has in fact has been under gangland management for years. British forces failed spectacularly in attempts to bring law and order to the waterfront, or to pacify the rival militias fighting turf wars over Basra. And Maliki’s political competitors in the southern Shiite belt appeared poised to do well, if not sweep, the provincial elections slated for October.

Whether Maliki sandbagged the United States into helping him make war on Basra now is an open question. President Bush said Friday he was not sure why Maliki chose this moment to try to crush the Madhi Army. That militia is controlled by Maliki’s rival, the anti-American cleric Moqtada Sadr, who had been abiding by a cease-fire he declared seven months ago. Maliki’s foes say he’s using the Americans to help him wipe out his political competitors ahead of the elections. Whether or not there is any truth to such a charge, this view held by the rival Shiites now under U.S. bombardment will make Washington seem even less credible as a honest broker for Iraqi political reconcilation. Even if Maliki succeeds in cleaning up Basra with a minimum of bloodshed, the renewed internecine violence highlights the importance of planning a careful, strategic U.S. military disengagement from Iraq.

Contributing editor Michael Kinsley asks a question few have dared -- how long does it take Hillary Clinton to do her make-up? He writes:

Every day for almost two years, the candidates campaign. The average day is probably 15 to 20 hours. The average amount of sleep could be four hours. Yet, every day, the male candidates can sleep an extra precious half-hour or more -- or spend the time cramming for the day -- simply because our culture doesn't impose the same rules on them about their appearance.

And these really are rules. Sure, there are women who take no more trouble about their appearance than most men do, and men who take more than the typical woman. But a middle-aged woman who is the first of her sex to make a serious run for the presidency is not going to be a pioneer in indifference to looks. One revolution at a time. She has got to look put together, all day, every day.

Columnist Rosa Brooks warns her fellow mothers against aggressively marketed, often orphaned Disney princesses. The Center for European Policy Analysis' A. Wess Mitchell notes the efforts of NATO's newer members in Afghanistan. And Harold Hall, wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 20 years, says his case shows why the state should reconsider execution.

The editorial board highlights the need for transparency in the LAPD, examines Mexico's raging drug war as it hits a small border town, and argues for habeas rights for two U.S. citizens held in Iraq.

Readers consider California's law against driving while cell-phoning. Valencia's Lisa Stevenson says:

We have always been eating, drinking coffee, reading road maps, changing radio stations, applying makeup, shaving, talking to passengers, disciplining children, groping for dropped gum, staring at sign-twirlers and beating out drum solos on our steering wheels while driving. Yet there are no laws banning these activities.

On the heels of the Iraq war's fifth anniversary comes another somewhat arbitrary but far more grim milestone: 4,000 American soldiers have now died in the conflict, though casualties have been low so far this year. The editorial board didn't remark on the death toll when it hit 2,000 (in October 2005) or 3,000 (at the end of 2006), even though those points coincided with some other big events -- the ratification of a draft constitution and Saddam Hussein's execution.

The board did write when the death toll hit 1,000, highlighting the randomness of marking a number of dead (sorry, no link):

Six U.S. soldiers were killed, two Italian aid workers were kidnapped and warplanes bombed a Sunni enclave in Fallouja, a city mostly off-limits to coalition troops. It was just another day in the war Tuesday, except for the numbers. By this morning, Iraq time, the Associated Press count of casualties stated that 1,000 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq, aside from more than 100 other coalition soldiers and thousands of Iraqi noncombatants. And many thousands more have been wounded.

It is an obvious point at which to ask: To what end are U.S. personnel continuing to die? What is it that commanders should tell their troops as they head into lethal streets?

The board noted another, less round number in January...

On this anniversary of the Iraq war, columnist Rosa Brooks is getting a five-year itch:

But I don't want to dwell on the bad times, because we did have some good times, didn't we? Remember those peaceful days between "Mission Accomplished" -- I think that was May 1, 2003 -- and ... and ... well, July 2003 or so, when we could still stroll around Baghdad at dusk, interrupted only by occasional small-arms fire? Those were the days, before the car bombs and IEDs.

We were happy then, weren't we, War?... But you can't go back again, can you?

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch notice that all those voters moving to the center and calling themselves independent have a lot in common with Libertarians. University of Missouri-St. Louis professor Richard Rosenfeld says that when it comes to the uptick in homicides, the buck actually doesn't stop with Police Chief Bratton. And columnist Patt Morrison thinks Councilman Tom LaBonge may be ready for mayorship... of the honorary kind, in Hollywood.

It's not just the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. It's also the fifth anniversary of misleading or plain wrong statements about it and the war on terror. Here's a few.

"This long-term struggle [against terror] became urgent on the morning of September 11th, 2001. That day we saw clearly that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home.... Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends, or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans."
--Vice President Dick Cheney
(Making the 9/11 connection is a more delicate dance than it was five years ago, but Cheney keeps finding ways to make the leap.)

"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you...in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
--President George Bush
(Warfare as romantic? No one's bought this line in five years, or for that matter, five decades.)

"Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate."
--John McCain
(Iran certainly trains extremists and ships 'em to Iraq, but they're not affiliated with Al Qaeda.)

"The surge is working. And as a return on our success in Iraq, we've begun bringing some of our troops home. The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror."
--George Bush
(Salon does it better than I could.)

For a few bloviator blasts from the past, see Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky's Op-Ed.

And of course, not everyone was off....

The grim half-decade of the war in Iraq is getting its share of punditry roundups and chest-beating self-criticism, so I guess I'll take a moment to probe my own conscience. I believed then and believe now that the true enemies are the liberal hawks, and in my perfect commentariat they would be banned. Nevertheless, I think my sense of the essential, elemental and incurable lack of seriousness with which the United States went to war has evolved somewhat. If I ever believed blame for the war could be quarantined to any group of thinkers or politicians, I no longer do. There is not a single American who can escape responsibility for this war; that includes Barack Obama, me, and anybody else who did not back up our opposition with any serious efforts to prevent this catastrophe, even at risk to our own safety or freedom. George Bush didn't invade Iraq. The United States of America did. As I said in August:

To put this as delicately as I can: Every non-idiot on the planet knew that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Having publicly argued otherwise should disqualify you from ever voicing any opinion on any topic ever again. Nevertheless, we as a nation went ahead with this war, and once you've made that decision, your only option is victory. Moral seriousness in this context means admitting the monstrous truth that we could continue to lose 1,000 soldiers a year for another 100 years, and that the logic of the original intervention demands we pay that price happily and continue to pay it until we get the results we want.

Just to reiterate, they call it war for a reason. What happened in Iraq is not a catastrophe caused by mismanagement: It's the best result anybody could have hoped for, and it was that long before the surge and the Petraeus miracle began. If you thought it was worth invading then, you have absolutely no right to complain about what's happened since.

For a less unhinged view, here is an editorial from a few years back, reassessing what turned out to be early test results:

In honor of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, "expertologists" Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky study the surge in punditry while cartoonist Ed Stein watches President Bush navigate the labyrinthine occupation. Novelist Andrew Klavan applauds playwright "David Mamet's public coming-out as a political conservative," and Tim Rutten likens Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech on Tuesday to Abraham Lincoln's historic "House Divided" address. Contributing editor Erin Aubry Kaplan also has a thing or two to say about Obama's speech on race:

Obama rebuked Wright, in part, because he knew their association was in mortal danger of morphing him into just another angry black man a la Nat Turner, Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan (whom Obama detractors have already attempted to conflate with Obama). Whatever salient points these men made have been entirely eclipsed by the fact that they were just too mad for comfort.

Strange, when you consider that we live in a culture that thrives on vituperation institutionalized by conservative talk radio -- guys such as Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus are paid to be mad. But, of course, white anger is seen as fundamentally reasoned and righteous, and Americans have an almost limitless capacity to forgive it when it isn't.

The editorial board condemns China's manipulation of media coverage as it cracks down on protesters in Tibet, and urges LAPD Chief William J. Bratton to release a private report examining SWAT. The board also finds great value in Obama's address:

It may have begun as an exercise in political damage control, but Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on "A More Perfect Union" was that rarity in American political discourse: a serious discussion of racial division, distrust and demonization. Whether or not the speech defuses the controversy about some crackpot comments by Obama's longtime pastor, it redefines our national conversation about race and politics and lays down a challenge to the cynical use of the "race card."

Readers react to the McCain campaign's murky plans for Iraq. Harold Tuchel writes:

It is concerning to hear an advisor to John McCain say McCain will not be as robust in military matters as his current campaign speeches indicate.

Although I don't favor any of the presidential candidates because of their policies of amnesty for illegal immigrants, what really concerns me is that they say one thing while fully intending to do another.

We have had enough of this type of chicanery with George W. Bush. 

Our sister LAT blog “Babylon & Beyond” has an affecting article (with a fantastic photo) about the mourning in Iraq for Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic prelate who died after being kidnapped near Mosul. The death of the archbishop is another blow to Iraq’s Christian community, including the Chaldean Catholic Church, an ancient community in communion with Rome. The exodus of Christians from Iraq in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein goes a long way toward explaining why the Vatican was opposed to the American invasion. It also explains why Chaldean Christians in America resent Bush’s war.

Aside from the carnage unleashed by the invasion, which appalled Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the invasion and the subsequent creation of an Islamist-friendly regime have made life hazardous for Iraq’s Christian minority. Saddam Hussein may have been a ruthless dictator, but, like the equally autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he was better for Christians than the alternative. (During a visit to Cairo several years ago, I noticed portraits of Mubarak in the vestibules of Coptic Orthodox churches and was told that Christians considered the dictator a bulwark against persecution by Islamic extremists.)

The effect of the invasion on Christians in Iraq is only one of the unforeseen consequences of the neocons’ cocky campaign to transform the Middle East. But it is an especially painful one for Christians including the pope, who last year appointed the Chaldean patriarch to the College of Cardinals as a gesture of solidarity with Iraqi Christians.

The hemorrhage of Christians from Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East — including Palestine — is traumatic for Christianity because the religion began there.  Chaldean Catholics, and their cousins the Assyrian Christians, traditionally celebrate the Eucharist in Syriac, a language similar to the Aramaic spoken by Jesus and his disciples. They are in a sense living fossils who remind Western Christians of their faith’s Semitic origins. It would be ironic if a military operation likened by Muslims to the Crusades succeeded in depopulating Iraq of its Christians.

Columnist Joel Stein asks the question on everyone's mind -- what exactly do you get for $1,000 an hour?

I called a high-end escort in Las Vegas who charges $500 an hour -- but gives, according to her website, a discount to educators and political activists. The escort , it turns out, is a huge fan of Spitzer, particularly his prosecution of Wall Street crimes when he was New York's attorney general. "I liked him. And I don't like many politicians. I have nothing but respect for him," she said. "It's a shame politicians can't have sex like everyone else."

The roughly $1,000 an hour that Spitzer paid for time with "Kristen," she told me, was not, as I assumed, to guarantee secrecy.... And the exorbitant rate wasn't a premium for weird or talented sex.

Former soldier and military historian Ed Ruggero notes near the 40th anniversary of the My Lai massacre that war is never simple. And the Center for American Progress' Lawrence J. Korb and Sean E. Duggan argue that if Gen. David H. Petraeus testifies alone, we'll never get the full picture of Iraq.

The editorial board examines new mortgage regulations proposed by the Bush administration, and says that after 136 years, it's really about time for a new mining law. Finally, the board urges the state to do away with another historical relic -- loyalty oaths.

On the letters page, readers react to Max Boot's take on Adm. William Fallon. Escondido's Blaise Jackson cracks, "So armchair-admiral Boot crawls out from under his ideologue rock to toss dirt at the departing Fallon; what a surprise."

Columnist Rosa Brooks explains what the Spitzer scandal means for the Clinton candidacy:

This gets to why this scandal has the potential to be more than just distracting and uncomfortable for Clinton. Spitzergate -- and Hillary's ambivalent response so far -- reminds us that Bill wasn't the only member of the Clinton family who let women down when he was in the White House.

Remember 1992? Hillary got in hot water for telling "60 Minutes" that "I'm not ... some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette."

But later, as Bill's career became mired in scandal after scandal, it became all too clear that Hillary was willing to tolerate pretty much anything he did.

George Washington University's Patty Kelly thinks Spitzergate could have another effect -- convincing Americans it's time to decriminalize prostitution. Contributing editor Timothy Garton Ash says Britain needs to define what it means to be British. And columnist Patt Morrison argues for our right to gripe.

The editorial board explains the battle of the brass that may have felled Adm. William J. Fallon...

The editorial board examines global insurgency after a violent few weeks around the world:

Last week's news underscored the problem. In Afghanistan, Taliban fighters, who enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan, blew up a fourth telecommunications tower as part of a campaign to silence cellphone service at night. In Pakistan, missiles of unknown origin smashed into a Taliban compound in what appeared to be the second unacknowledged U.S. Predator strike into that country this year. Turkey struck at Kurdish rebel enclaves over the border in northern Iraq. From Gaza, Hamas pelted Israeli towns with increasingly longer-ranged missiles. And Colombia, fed up with attacks by guerrillas from jungle camps in Ecuador, staged a cross-border raid and was denounced across Latin America for violating Ecuadorean sovereignty.

Wiping out terrorist sanctuaries after 9/11 wasn't supposed to be so difficult -- except that it always has been. The Bush administration assumed that swift and massive U.S. military might, followed by democracy and massive infusions of money for development, would sweep the terrorists into the dustbin of history. It hasn't happened anywhere.

The board also looks at California's electricity deregulation ten years later, and says a new cap-and-trade plan could be just as disastrous.

As if global insurgency weren't bad enough, author Philip Jenkins thinks conditions are ripe for home-grown terrorism. And East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice director Angelo Logan says that a firm that wans to expand port service isn't as green as it claims. Craving more bad news? The University of Vermont's Robert Costanza says the latest recession is small fry compared to the three-decade decline in the American quality of life. Finally, some levity: Columnist Gregory Rodriguez wonders if appearing on "The Colbert Report" to hawk his book makes him a sell out. (If you missed it, watch it here.)

On the letters page, readers react to the latest false memoir scam, this one by a white Sherman Oaks woman writing as an African American surviving foster care and gangs in South L.A. San Diego's Michael Bolger gives her some comeuppance: "I was in three foster homes, a continuation of the hell I lived with my mother in the San Fernando Valley. Having survived to become a high-functioning member of society, I have thought often of writing a memoir. But morally bankrupt individuals like [Margaret] Seltzer make it harder for others to tell their stories of survival."

Heather Mac Donald's lightning-rod piece on campus rape takes the top spot this week, with Dallas Weaver's Blowback on copyright a very close second. Readers didn't make this another mostly-Obama week, opting instead for conscience-stricken paparazzi and stubborn sadness. Here they are:

1. What campus rape crisis? by Heather Mac Donald
2. Copyright this, by Dallas Weaver
3. Surge doesn't equal success, by Michael Kinsley
4. The snapper snapped, by Nick Stern
5. Too good to win, by Joel Stein
6. White like us, by Gregory Rodriguez
7. What a little bird told us, by Jonathan Rosen
8. The miracle of melancholia, by Eric G. Wilson
9. Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs
10. Food or fuel? by the editorial board

Council on Foreign Relations senior fellows Charles Kupchan and Ray Takeyh advise the U.S. to find a new, nonaggressive strategy to "bring Tehran to heel," and cartoonist Lisa Benson wonders whether Texas will end up bucking Hillary Clinton in tonight's Democratic primary. Meanwhile, New Republic senior editor Jonathan Chait suggests Clinton admit defeat and "go gentle into that good night," and Temple University mathematics professor John Allen Paulos wonders why, in America's shifting religious landscape, atheists are still stuck at the bottom of the totem pole. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley marvels at the manipulations of Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey:

I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.

In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers.

Such a perfect paradox is no easy task. Most attempts fall apart because of some element of logical consistency.

The editorial board serves up its recipe for streamlining the beleaguered Food and Drug Administration, and tells Mayor Villaraigosa's critics to quit complaining about his globetrotting ways:

Los Angeles had a stay-at-home kind of mayor and didn't much like it, so the city dumped James K. Hahn and voted in a player. Antonio Villaraigosa told voters they lived in a big city, one worthy of a big-city mayor who could hold his own not just with high-profile mayors from New York or Chicago but with presidents. He said he would go to Sacramento, Washington or anywhere else to put L.A. at the top of the national political agenda. On this point, he was as good as his word. It was no surprise when he went to Asia or Latin America. It should be no surprise now that he is spending so much time out of state in a last-ditch effort to salvage Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

Readers react to Gov. Schwarzenegger's plans to deal with the state's budget problems. "Real Republicans," writes Karen Reisdorf, "will stand up and declare that educating our children is more important than protecting their playthings, i.e. yachts, airplanes and luxury RVs. In the face of the unfunded mandate in No Child Left Behind, only a selfish juvenile would do otherwise."

Can anything or anybody replace Barack Obama in readers' hearts? Not this week: Despite a selection of hot topics from Scientology to gun control to torture to the Christian Oscars, and even a surprise return by perennial favorite Stonehenge, Sarah M. Miller's Obama Blowback drew more traffic than the rest of the Top 10 combined. Hats off to Obama for continuing to draw readers and voters, and to you for reading the L.A. Times Opinion pages.

1. Open letter to Barack Obama, by Sarah M. Miller
2. The invasion of America, by Andrew P. Napolitano
3. A leap beyond faith, by Michael Shermer
4. 'Prayers' just won't do, by Tim Rutten
5. Hola, Obama, by the editorial board
6. Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs
7. Peter Principle of award shows, by Joel Stein
8. Political surge in Iraq, by the editorial board
9. Fidel's slow fade, by Jon Lee Anderson
10. Shame, Sen. McCain, by the editorial board

Joel Stein indulges in a little pre-nostalgia for the Clinton campaign, and former editorial page editor Michael Kinsley wiggles his fingers in the cracks in the logic behind the "surge" in Iraq. Cartoonist Joel Pett maps President Bush's carefully navigated route through Africa, and Ronald Brownstein finds the odds leaning in Barack Obama's favor. Ex-paparazzo Nick Stern reveals why he walked away from his calling:

Frankly, I felt uneasy about the frenzy surrounding Britney right from the start. The aggression and recklessness shocked me. On one occasion, as she left a Rite-Aid on Sunset, I saw the pack (walking backward to continue shooting) knock a homeless woman to the ground. No one bothered to even check whether she was hurt. This, combined with the suggestions about Britney's deteriorating mental health, made me increasingly uncomfortable. I likened it to a pack of hounds chasing an injured fox.

The editorial board criticizes U.S. AIDS-prevention plans for failing to recognize that it's often husbands infecting wives, but also notes that Bush's "successor would do well to scrap most of this president's foreign policy strategies, but Africa is one that he got right." Finally, the board encourages supporting teachers, not legislation, in combating the intolerance that led to tragedy last week:

The fatal shooting of an Oxnard middle-school student who told classmates he was gay serves as a sorrowing and urgent reminder that all kids need a safe school environment, free of threat or harassment. That's best taught to children through everyday interactions in the classroom and on the playground, by observant teachers, stern principals and strong school leaders. Both a proposed California curriculum on diversity education and a ludicrous decision in Virginia to pull a children's book depicting two male penguins raising a chick send the schools in the wrong direction.

Readers react to Michelle Obama's being proud to be an American. Stephen Wagner writes:

Obviously no one should believe Michelle Obama's comments to be unpatriotic. However, although her husband is running against Sen. Hillary Clinton, I would hope that even Obama would realize that the eight years of the Clinton administration were something Americans took great pride in.

Gregory Rodriguez defends the Hollywood sign against Chicago companies, and cartoonist Joel Pett comments on Barack Obama's Reagan-esque appeal. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew P. Napolitano strikes out at the creeping invasion of constitutional rights to privacy, and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer explains what recent protests by Anonymous reveal about Scientology and religion:

Envision converting to Judaism but having to pay to learn the story of Abraham and Isaac, Noah and the flood or Moses and the Ten Commandments. Or imagine joining the Catholic Church but not being told about the crucifixion and the resurrection until you have reached Operating Theological Level III, which takes many years and many tens of thousands of dollars.

That is, in essence, how the Church of Scientology dispenses its theology, leading ex-members, critics and journalists to divulge Scientology's sacred myth all over the Internet and in such national publications as the New York Times and Rolling Stone magazine, and even on the animated TV series "South Park."

The editorial board applauds the political surge in Iraq, and wonders whether Harvard professors' online publishing venture will ever have the cachet of "Obama girl." The board also defends philanthropist Eli Broad's art deal with LACMA:

LACMA has long struggled to rise above its mishmash of buildings and installations. Its new addition marks one more step in that continuing campaign, one that is promising if not always successful. With Govan's imagination and Broad's generosity -- whether in the form of loans or gifts -- it is solidifying a place at the center of California's high culture.

Readers react to an editorial on local teachers unions. "Finding solutions to ailing schools is never an easy task," writes Randi Weingarten, president of United Federation of Teachers, New York, "but pitting two unions against each other is not the answer."

Hillary, Hillary, the return of Stonehenge and more Hillary were your favorites this week. Sure, our old friends Max Boot, Jonathan Chait and Gregory Rodriguez, as well as another batch of Kennedys ('cause you can never get enough) did the actual writing, but it was Hillary's week in Opinion L.A. Without further ado:

1. Is the right right on the Clintons?, by Jonathan Chait
2. Kennedys for Clinton, by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy
3. Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs
4. This primary is secondary, by Ethan Rarick
5. When Bill Clinton attacks, by the editorial board
6. Why Clinton can count on Latinos, by Harry P. Pachon and Rodolfo O. de la Garza
7. Iraq's No. 1 problem, by Bing West and Max Boot
8. Clinton's Latino spin, by Gregory Rodriguez
9. Dust-Up: It's the stupid economy, by Steven Landsburg and Jason Furman
10. A bitter pill for Big Pharma, by Melody Petersen

The Kennedy clan isn't a united front for Barack Obama, it seems. Three Kennedys write in support of Hillary Clinton and compare her to their father, Robert F. Kennedy:

Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society's ladder -- giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind.

She's been an equally effective champion for human rights and for women's rights, a worldwide cause that will profit enormously by her elevation to the presidency.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg remembers that Bush and Clinton promised change, too, and everybody suffered when they delivered. Author Craig Childs asks how much treasure museums really need. And English teacher Alan Warhaftig wonders what the teachers union will do in the post-A.J. Duffy era.

The editorial board reacts to the State of the Union, finding that Bush's speech about trust reflected his distrust of his own government. The board notes that Bush will spend anything -- including multiple trillions -- to secure Iraq, Afghanistan, and his legacy. The board also says that the Foothill South tollway is a disaster waiting to happen, no matter what the governor says.

Readers react to Obama's South Carolina win. Mary McLemore of Pike Road, Ala., isn't so sure about his prospects: "One wonders whether, after the Clinton machine makes road kill of Obama, minorities will suddenly wonder why they have allowed the Democratic Party to use and abuse them for decades."

In case you hadn't heard, Iraq has finally agreed on changes ot the national flag! Temporarily, of course, until they can figure out a permanent solution next year.

It's not a huge accomplishment: All that's happened is that the three stars (representing Saddam Hussein's Baath party slogan of "unity, freedom, socialism") have been removed. And the lettering is a nice deep hunter green rather than the tacky quasi-neon shade — clearly, an indication of evolving Iraqi tastes.

The de-Baathification of the flag is a little ironic, considering that the  government has just recently eased restristrictions on former low-level party members. It was mostly a Kurdish demand, given that Hussein's forces massacred thousands of Kurds in the 1980s. A previous attempt to change the color of the script from green (a color representing Islam) to yellow (indicating the sun, which holds religious and cultural significance in Kurdish tradition) failed pretty miserably in Parliament.

An interim flag really wouldn't be that big a deal if it weren't for the flag's rocky recent history. In 2006 tensions spiked when Kurdistan's regional president refused to fly the Iraqi national flag from government offices; in 2004 a leaked copy of a design sparked flag burnings in Iraq. The military newspaper