Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

White phosphorous apparently illuminates minds at NY Times

Balloon Juice:

It was only a matter of time before the ‘WP’ debate leaped from left-wing anti-war activists to left-wing blogs to the foreign press to the NY Times editorial page, so this was to be expected:

Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America’s credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.

White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy’s positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body.

The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.

Pretty impressive. Overstating what it does, misstating precisely what it is, and packing in the Saddam/Kurd canard. All in two paragraphs.

...

If the NY Times wants to elevate the debate to a question of moral issues, I have no problem with that. But not in the context of false charges, in the context of calling our troops war criminals, and in the context of overstating and misrepresenting the usage of WP. As I stated the other day, using charges of war crimes and indiscriminate use of ‘chemical weapons’ by our troops on innocent civilians as a vehicle to discuss the ‘larger issue’ of the ‘moral’ use of a weapon is tantamount to accusing an innocent man of rape to raise the ‘larger issue’ of ‘sexual assault.’

...

There is more. The willful ignorance of liberal media becomes more obvious everyday. There is also the silly idea that the willie peter was being aimed at people who would otherwise be on our side. What the NY Times is suggesting is that our troops be the denied the use of an effective weapon that helps them defeat the enemy because they think its ikky.