Earlier this week, Rep. Henry Waxman accused the State Department of obstructing an investigation into Blackwater USA’s actions in Iraq. Providing yet another indication of the State Department’s willingness to stick its neck out for the shadowy security contractor, the Washington Post reports today that two career investigators in the office of the State Department Inspector General were threatened with firing if they cooperated with Congressional investigations into Blackwater. The whistle-blowers allege that State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard “has repeatedly thwarted investigations into alleged contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan…and weapons smuggling allegations against Blackwater USA.” These new allegations bring up a disturbing question: why does the State Department continue to defend Blackwater at the expense of America’s security?

UPDATE: From Think Progress: “the Pentagon had issued a new list of contracts, including one worth $92 million to Presidential Airways, the “aviation unit of parent company Blackwater.”

UPDATE II: From Newsweek: “an extensive evidence file put together by the Iraqi National Police and obtained by NEWSWEEK—including documents, maps, sworn witness statements and police video footage—appears to contradict the contractors’ version of events. A confidential incident report, which has been provided by Iraqi National Police investigators to American military and civilian officials, concludes that the Blackwater vehicles “opened fire crazily and randomly, without any reason.”

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani lashed out at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for changing her view on the use of torture.

I am going to wait till she holds a position for a week or two and then I am going to comment on it. Senator Clinton changes her mind so often, that it is really really hard to critique a particular position, because by the time you critique it she may have changed it.

But since announcing his candidacy for president, Giuliani himself has changed his positions on immigration and the threat of terrorism to reflect the views of GOP primary voters. While mayor, Giuliani sued the federal government over a provision in a welfare reform bill which he believed would lead to “inhumane” treatment of illegal immigrants. He defended immigrants “as valuable contributors to the city’s economy and culture” and acknowledged that “we’re never going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours.”

Now, Giuliani is certain that we can. In a recent speech Giuliani promised that “we can end illegal immigration” with “stricter border control, tamper-proof identification cards for noncitizens and the deportation of foreign-born criminals.”

Giuliani’s rhetoric on terror also contrasts with his record. These days, Giuliani says that he understands terrorism “better than anyone else running for President,” and portrays himself as “deeply engaged with the Islamic extremist threat long before planes hit the World Trade Center.”

“But for most of Giuliani’s career as a Department of Justice official, prosecutor and New York’s chief executive, terrorism was a narrow aspect of his broader crime-fighting agenda…Giuliani expressed confidence that Islamic extremism could be contained through vigorous investigation by law enforcement agencies and prosecution in the court system — the same approach he now condemns.”

In fact, Giuliani framed “terrorism in the language of crime” in the weeks after September 11th and “as mayor, Giuliani made decisions that seemed to discount the gravity of the terrorist threat, such as placing his emergency command center at the World Trade Center a few years after the 1993 bombing attack there, against the wishes of top advisers.”

World events and shifting political realities can surely cause politicians’ views and positions to evolve. But Giuliani’s disingenuous attempt to portray himself as a consistent, tough and even visionary candidate, and his hypocritical attacks against Clinton, only highlight the contradictions of his image.

The New York Times is reporting that a suicide bomber wearing an Afghan military uniform “killed at least 27 people, including civilians, making it one of the deadliest suicide bombings in Afghanistan this year.”

Over the past year, coalition forces have lost ground in Afghanistan, as the conflict has taken a back seat to the war in Iraq. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, recently admitted that “security in his country had ‘definitely deteriorated.’”

According to a United Nations report, in the first eight months of 2007, “Afghanistan had suffered a 69 percent increase in suicide bombings over the same period last year…There have already been 100 bombings this year, killing at least 290 people, according to Afghan and international officials. A record 123 were carried out in 2006, inflicting some 305 deaths.”

In an article titled “Sycophant Savior,” Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich argues that Gen. David Petraeus “indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter.”

A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began—namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons them—and not military commanders—to make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass.

UPDATE: ABC’s Political Punch points out that given their penchant for selective moral outrage, conservative lawmakers are unlikely to condemn Bacevich, “a Vietnam veteran and self-described “Catholic conservative,” whose son First Lt. Andrew Bacevich was killed in Iraq in May — as… [they] did with MoveOn.org after that liberal group’s “General Betray Us” ad.

In a radio interview with the BBC, the “top NATO commander in Afghanistan says hardfought gains by alliance troops this year could be lost, if Afghan security forces fail to hold ground seized from the Taleban.”

U.S. General Dan McNeill said NATO forces have had success this year in driving Taleban fighters from the valleys of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province. But McNeill says the Afghan national security forces have not been as successful in holding the captured territory. He says there is a chance the Taleban could return to the area in coming months, forcing NATO troops to do the clearing work again.

This news must have come as a shock to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Earlier this month, Rumsfeld argued that the war in Afghanistan has been “a big success.”

“Look at Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, 28 million people are free. They have their own president, they have their own parliament. Improved a lot on the streets.”

All your theories worked there, in other words.

“It’s been a big success!”

Yesterday, Mitt Romney attacked the Democratic presidential candidates for agreeing to allow their children to read a story about same-sex marriage as part of their school curriculum.

Last night’s debate was just the latest example of how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people. Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade. This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand-up to their ultra liberal base and do what’s right for our children.”

As it turns out, Mitt Romney is “out of touch” with the American Constitution and the laws of his own state. Wednesday’s debate exchange was inspired by a lawsuit in which a pair of parents argued that in introducing a book about same-sex marriages into the school curriculum, the Lexington public schools violated the parents’ constitutional right to raise their children and to freely exercise their religion.

In his decision dismissing the case, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of the United States District Court of Massachusetts recognized that “parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children” as they please, but affirmed the public school’s right “to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

In fact, the judge argued that Massachusetts law, which recognizes same-sex marriages, “requires that public school curricula encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation.”

The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what public school may teach their children and that teachings which contradict a parent’s religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion. […]

Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation…It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same sex-parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to affirm our nation’s constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society.

Romney’s bigoted stance is clearly contrary to the laws of the US and his home state of Massachusetts. Once again, Romney is allowing his religious beliefs to color his positions on public policy.

The New York Times reports, “Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.”

On Tuesday, The Body Politik argued that “the media controversy surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address at Columbia University bolstered the stature of the “increasingly isolated” Iranian leader” and empowered American war hawks.

Iran’s top reform politicians agree. ABC News reports that Mohsen Mirdamadi, “one of Iran’s top reform politicians said Wednesday that demonizing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad such as in this week’s Columbia University forum only strengthens hard-liners’ hand as Iranians rally around their otherwise unpopular leader.”

“The remarks by the Columbia University president were like an indictment against the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad’s opponents don’t support this,” he said. “The blistering speech against Ahmadinejad only strengthened him back home and made his radical supporters more determined,” Mirdamadi said during the hour-long interview in his central Tehran office.

During Monday’s question-and-answer session, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger gave a tough introduction to Ahmadinejad, including telling him that he resembles a “petty and cruel dictator.”

Many Iranians found the comments insulting, particularly because in Iranian traditions of hospitality, a host should be polite to a guest, no matter what he thinks of him. To many, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim, and hard-liners praised the president’s calm demeanor during the event, saying Bollinger was spouting a “Zionist” line.

According to Mirdamadi, “Western powers have to stop any talk of war if they want democracy to succeed in Iran. The threat of an attack “helps Ahmadinejad’s political agenda.”

Any U.S. military action against Iran will only boost radicals within Iran … Military action will set back democracy in Iran for a decade or two.

Unfortunately, since Ahmadinejad’s disingenuous and disgraceful address, the Senate passed Cheney’s fondest pipe dream, the Lieberman-Kyl resolution on Iran, the Fox News network stepped up its efforts to promote regime change, and today the Wall Street Journal opined that the President “has an obligation to do whatever it takes to stop [Iran].”

Mitt Romney sure talks tough about isolating Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and dis-investing from companies doing business with Iran.

We need to tighten the screws on Iran [by]… isolating a regime that threatens genocide, supports terrorism and defiantly seeks nuclear capabilities… I have called for our state leaders to take action to divest our public pension funds from Iran. In the months ahead, I hope other leaders will join this effort. We have to send the strongest possible message that the world does not support the Iranian regime’s sinister actions.

But the former Massachusetts governor has made millions by investing in companies with business ties to the Ahmadinejad regime. Does he support “the Iranian regime’s sinister actions”?

Watch it:

Not contented by the Senate’s recent threat to “‘combat, contain and [stop]’ Iran via ‘military instruments,’” nor by the constant attempts of Fox News to promote war with Iran, the Wall Street Journal writes today, the President “has an obligation to do whatever it takes to stop [Iran].”

With shrill rhetoric, the WSJ argues for the declaration of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and faults Bush for not blocking Mohamed ElBaradei’s nomination as chief the IAEA over John Bolton’s “warnings.” “Now, the U.S. has to live with his pro-Iranian machinations,” the WSJ writes.

The WSJ ought to be reminded: while they were trumpeting the cause for war with Iraq, it was El Baradei who “spoke up against the White House’s campaign of misinformation” and provided “intelligence that shot down White House rationales for going to war.” And it was El Baradei who was right.