The federal government’s fiscal 2010 was far worse than 2009. We can’t afford more years like it.

____________________________

Note: This column appeared at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Monday morning. I have added a few additional links.

____________________________

After cutting through the “clever” misdirections contained in the final Monthly Treasury Statement of the federal government’s fiscal year just ended on September 30, it’s clear that that Uncle Sam’s true financial situation deteriorated at an even faster rate in fiscal 2010 than it did during fiscal 2009. What I choose to describe as Uncle Sam’s operating deficit was 19% higher. You read that right.

Let’s start with receipts.

In fiscal 2008, before deducting IRS-generated stimulus payments that were substantively disbursements, the government took in over $2.6 trillion. In recession-dominated fiscal 2009, collections dropped about 20% to $2.104 trillion. In fiscal 2010, the supposed year of economic recovery, receipts were $2.162 trillion, a less than 3% increase that was over $100 billion short of the $2.264 trillion the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in August 2009.

When you look at why any increase in receipts occurred at all, you realize how weak and two-tiered the economy really is. Only two major areas showed an increase: Income taxes paid directly by corporations (up by 38% to $191 billion) and collections from the Federal Reserve (up by over 120%, from $34 billion to $76 billion, per the CBO). Large, established firms pay the vast majority of corporate income taxes; the increase in these collections demonstrates that, relatively speaking, their situation has improved. Collections from the Fed have spiked because its “money from nothing” quantitative easing (QE) portfolio has ballooned; interested and dividends earned on QE investments are handed over to the Treasury. After excluding QE earnings, the government’s operational receipts in fiscal 2010 amounted to $2.086 trillion, barely higher than fiscal 2009′s comparable $2.070 trillion.

Fiscal 2010 receipts trailed fiscal 2009 in the two other major categories. Collections of individual income taxes (down 2% to $898 billion) and for Social Security and Medicare (down almost 4% to $815 billion) were very disappointing. The Social Security system is running monthly cash deficits — right now, not 30 years from now.

The real receipts downer is buried within the individual income tax category. Look at what has happened during the past four years with gross non-withheld income tax receipts, which are predominantly paid by entrepreneurs, business owners (i.e., of “pass-through” entities like Sub-S corporations and LLCs — Ed.), and investors (in billions; from Page 2 of Table 4 in each year’s Monthly Treasury Statement):

- Fiscal 2007 — $437.6
- Fiscal 2008 — $455.3
- Fiscal 2009 — $312.4
- Fiscal 2010 — $278.2

From their peak in 2008, gross non-withheld receipts have dived by almost 39%. During fiscal 2010, the year of supposed economic recovery, they dropped 11%.

This would not be happening in a truly improving economy. What the figures tragically show is that the “Going Galt” phenomenon, which got going in mid-2008 as what I have been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy began, is continuing and spreading. Those of us who have been asserting that “It’s the uncertainty, stupid” have not been crying wolf. Non-wittheld receipts won’t recover significantly unless and until something is done about that uncertainty.

Many of us have also been saying, “It’s the spending, stupid.” That situation also worsened in fiscal 2010.

As the following graphic shows, taking away lower payouts to wards of the state Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the effects of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), out-of-pocket federal spending in fiscal 2010 shot upward (figures presented are from the CBO’s prerelease report, and only differs by very minor amounts from the final Treasury Statement):

Spending on the regular operations of the government in fiscal 2010 was 7.5% higher than the previous year. Even if you buy Team Obama’s claim (which I don’t) that fiscal 2009 spending had to increase radically to combat the recession, what justification is there for the 2010 spike, when inflation was barely 1%?

Let’s look at just a few of the increases in departments having little or nothing to do with economic recovery (detail assembled from the Treasury Statement is here):

• Commerce — increased by 23%, from $10.7 billion to $13.2 billion (pretty sad, given how little increase in real commerce there has been)
• Education — up 74%, from $53.4 billion to $92.9 billion (if you don’t think that kids have become 74% better-educated, you’re not alone)
• Energy — up 30%, from $23.7 billion to $30.8 billion (I guess attempting to stop energy development and exploration at every turn requires a lot of money)
• EPA — up 36%, from $8.1 billion to $11.0 billion (this might be a grim “bargain,” given that the agency’s regulatory burden seems to have increased by a much higher percentage)
• International Assistance — up 35%, from $14.8 billion to $20.0 billion (somehow, those who were supposed to like us more once Barack Obama was elected don’t seem to appreciate our expanded largesse)
• Small Business Administration — up 177%, from $2.2 billion to $6.1 billion (quite ironic, given how small business has suffered since the POR economy began)

One of the few decreases that occurred took place in an area that involves a key constitutionally designated duty of the government. It was in Homeland Security, where spending declined 14%, from $51.7 billion to $44.5 billion.

All told, Uncle Sam’s fiscal 2010 operational deficit was really $1.435 trillion, a breathtaking 19% increase from fiscal 2009:

And yet, we’re still not done. $1.435 trillion is just the “on-budget” deficit. During fiscal 2010, the national debt went up by $1.652 trillion (from $11.910 to $13.562 trillion), meaning that “off-budget” activities generated over $200 billion in additional deficits. The national debt has increased by over $3 trillion since Obama’s January 20, 2009 inauguration.

Now that this column has completed its fog-clearing operations, the truth becomes undeniable: The Obama administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress have spent wildly and run up deficits recklessly on a scale virtually unprecedented in human history. They have no interest in stopping — unless they themselves are stopped, at the ballot box and during the years that follow.

From Boston:

Oct 27, 2010 / 06:00 am

Bishops in Massachusetts are emphasizing the importance of voters protecting the sanctity of life and upholding traditional marriage in the upcoming mid-term elections.

In a guest opinion column in Boston’s Herald News on Oct. 26, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference released a statement signed by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston, Bishop George Coleman of the Diocese of Fall River, Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell of the Diocese of Springfield and Bishop Robert J. McManus of the Diocese of Worcester.

The bishops opened their remarks by saying that one “of the greatest blessings of our American democracy is the opportunity it affords to its citizens to step up and share their vision of a better society.”

“It was the same yearning for a better life for everyone that brought many of our ancestors to this country. So it is a deeply-rooted concern for the common good that has moved us throughout our history to participate in the election process,” they noted. “Our convictions about the importance of voting are bolstered by the innate sense of hope that has endowed this nation with such promise in good times and in bad.”

The Massachusetts bishops then stated that in the upcoming elections, certain “moral and social issues are fundamentally important, since human rights are at stake and must be protected to help democracy to flourish in a way that benefits every citizen.”

“These include the defense of the sanctity of life, the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, religious freedom, and the well-being of the poor,” the prelates wrote.

Go here for the rest of the story.

Clearly, Becky Bohrer at the Associated Press is very picky about what she’ll report.

In her story datelined early this morning (“Senate race in Alaska is bitter and unpredictable”), she played the “any Tea Partier whose family or extended family has ever taken a government benefit is automatically a hypocrite” card. She made sure readers knew about Republican candidate Joe Miller’s incredibly awful (that’s sarcasm, in case anyone doesn’t get it) violation of a government entity’s office policy, wherein he was “disciplined for participating in a private poll during his lunch hour” (oh, the humanity!), and how Miller’s presence in the campaign has “frightened” many Democrats into seriously considering their candidate, Scott McAdams.

In discussing Lisa Murkowski’s performance at a Sunday night debate with Miller and Democratic candidate Scott McAdams, Bohrer gave visibility to Murkowski’s questioning of whether Miller, who earned a Bronze Star in the Army, “has lived up to the (military) code of honor.” But the AP writer “somehow forgot” that Murkowski flatly asserted in her closing remarks that Miller is “not fit to serve” — a contention that drew sharp negative reaction from the crowd on hand (I guess that was Bohrer’s “gosh, I’d better not report this” signal).

All in all, Bohrer’s blather is a clear attempt to portray Miller as struggling, Murkowski as ascending, and “tireless campaigner” McAdams as a potential upset winner.

Here are several paragraphs from Becky’s blather:

For Alaskan voters, this year’s Senate election is venturing into unexplored territory.

The three-way contest features a rematch of the bitter Republican primary, a rising Democrat who is moving from spoiler to contender, and even a voice from the grave. With millions of dollars flowing into the state to help fuel nonstop TV and radio ads, the scope of outside interest in the election is virtually unprecedented.

Don’t count on a quick resolution to the drama on Election Night. If the race turns out to be as tight as polling suggests, write-in and absentee ballots could come into play. That could put off a final tally – and the determination of the winner – for weeks.

… Miller, 43, has been working to regain focus and overcome a series of missteps. The fiscal conservative has acknowledged that he or members of his family received Medicaid, unemployment and farm subsidies in the past – government largesse he’s criticized as a candidate – and his security detail was criticized for handcuffing and detaining a journalist after a town hall meeting.

Miller fought release of his personnel file from his time as a government attorney with the Fairbanks North Star Borough, admitting only that he had violated office policy and refusing to provide details. After a judge ordered the release of the personnel records, Miller said during a debate Sunday night that he had been disciplined for participating in a private poll during his lunch hour. He called it a mistake he’s learned from.

… The race turned personal a long time ago. In the debate Sunday night, Murkowski accused Miller of telling lies about her record and misusing government computers while a borough attorney. She asked him whether he believed his instructors and classmates at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point would say he has lived up to the code of honor.

… But McAdams has proven to be a tireless campaigner, filling town hall meetings, working the phones with potential donors and proving to many Democrats – lukewarm about Murkowski but frightened by what a Miller win would mean – that he’s not a token candidate.

Here is what Murkowski said at the end of Sunday night’s debate (video is here at Right Scoop):

I think it’s important that Alaskans look at this race. They need to know whether or not any of the three of us can take this state into the future.

Scott is not ready to lead, Joe is not fit to lead. I have been leading this state … (crowd boos and reacts negatively) … I have been leading this state … … (negative crowd reaction continues) … for eight years, and I will continue to do so, bringing the seniority that I have built, the, the work ethic that I have built, and the passion for the state that I live, love. I ask Alaskans for their support on November 2.

Ms. “Bridge to Nowhere Supporter” Murkowski’s remark would turn off virtually any Alaskan voter aware of it. That’s where Becky Bohrer’s non-reporting of the remark comes in. Shame on you, Ms. Bohrer. Since she won’t report it, and since I suspect the state’s local press will relatively downplay it, Alaskans will need to ensure that all of their friends and neighbors are aware of Murkowski’s outrageous contention with all deliberate speed.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

_____________________________________________________

UPDATE: Someone should remind Lisa “Leading This State” Murkowski that the U.S. Senate is a legislative position, not an executive one. She should be representing her state.

Perfect, on the realities of human nature, business, and the government:

“There is nothing progressive about progressivism.”

Contemptible (HT Hot Air; towards the end of the vid at the link).

Note the crowd reax.

UPDATE: From Miller’s web site, on his military service —

Prior to becoming an attorney and a judge, Miller served as an officer in the United States Army. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his leadership in combat during the First Gulf War. He received his commission from West Point, where he graduated with honors. Joe is also a graduate of Yale Law School and holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Alaska.

Talk about “fitness” — Alaska’s GOP voters have already decided that Lisa Murkowski was not as fit as Joe Miller is to be their nominee for the general election. But 50-something spoiled brat Murkowski, who seems to think that a seat in the U.S. Senate is her birthright, didn’t understand the meaning of “no.”

UPDATE 2: An important blast from the past —

Alaska Bridge to Nowhere Linked to Senator’s Property
November 8, 2005

When Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) defends the $223 million “Bridge to Nowhere” for a near desolate island in her homestate of Alaska, she may have good reasons.

It also helps that her family owns property on the island.

This past October, Sen. Murkowski took to the Senate floor to stop efforts to redirect federal funding for the bridge to help disaster relief in the Katrina zone and New Orleans.

She told her colleagues it was “very difficult to stand here as an Alaskan and not take this personally.”

And for the Senator it may be very personal.

Though Gravina Island, Alaska has a population of just fifty, it is scheduled to benefit from this year’s massive highway bill that doled out more than $24 billion in pork projects across the nation.

Alaska’s congressional delegation secured a total of $941 million in pork projects, including $223 million for construction of the Alaskan bridge linking Gravina and its airport to the neighboring island of Ketchikan with a population of 14,000.

That’s $4.46 million per resident of Gravina.

Recent news reports have revealed the Murkowski family owns land within one mile of the proposed construction site on Gravina Island.

Murkowski claimed the land was basically worthless and would stay worthless.

Regardless of the potential personal benefit, the Bridge to Nowhere was a watershed moment showing that too many establishment Republicans had lost their way. Alaskans need to get her out of the way.

UPDATE 3: A great comparison between Miller and Murkowski is here at Miller’s site. A point to highlight —

(Murkowski) Favored working within the existing Obama-Care framework to make changes at the margins.
“Repealing [the new healthcare law] is not the answer in my opinion…” – KTUU interview on March 30, 2010

UPDATE 4: Crickets chirp as we wait for the same people who said, “Don’t you question the patriotism or issue positions of a military person” when John Murtha and Max Cleland were involved to come to Miller’s defense.

From New York:

October 17, 2010 11:56 PM

On Sunday, a war hero was finally recognized with one of the military’s highest honors.

Six decades after a Queens man helped save hundreds of U.S. servicemen during World War II, he as awarded the Bronze Star.

George Vujnovich, 95, was pinned with the U.S. Bronze Star medal for crafting one of the greatest rescue operations in American military history.

“I am deeply honored to get the Bronze Star medal,” Vujnovich said in accepting the award.

The mission was called “Operation Halyard.” U.S. planes entered enemy territory to airlift more than 500 servicement shot down in Nazi-controlled Yugoslavia. Vujnovich was an officer in the O.S.S., the C.I.A. of those days.

“I was the operations officer, knew the circumstances over there, knew the country, knew how to pick these men, knew how to train them,” he said.

He worked with rebel leaders and trained spies to infiltrate the Nazi-occupied region and build a field runway, where U.S. planes dropped in for the daring rescues.

“They didn’t turn off the motors,” Vujnovich said. “They loaded them in, and sent them right back.”

For months during 1944, dozens of planes flew in to carry the airmen to safety.

Through his extraordinary vision and direct efforts, he was able to take the audacious plan from the drawing board to the rescue of 512 Allied airmen,” New York Congressman Joseph Crowley said. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

So Many Videos, So Little Time …

Here’s Harry Reid in 2008:

“… you can literally smell the tourists coming through the Capitol …”

Wow. Not all of us get to stay at our own condo in the Ritz Carlton in DC, Harry. Here’s hoping you have plenty of time to enjoy those digs after you lose and join a lobbying firm like so many of your other predecessors.

It’s here.

Subtitle:

The Obama administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress have spent wildly and run up deficits recklessly on a scale virtually unprecedented in human history.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Wednesday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

The key takeaway is that the Obama administration, despite contentions to the contrary, opened up the spending spigots even further and increased the national debt by even more during in fiscal 2010 than it did during fiscal 2009.

Some key points:

• Federal operating receipts (i.e., money collected other than from Ben Bernanke’s quantitative easing escapade) barely budged in fiscal 2010 vs. fiscal 2009 (up less than 1%, and still down about 20% from fiscal 2008).
• After taking away payments to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the impact of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which through the use of non-cash accounting entries artificially reduced fiscal 2010′s reported outlays after artificially increasing fiscal 2009′s, spending on federal government operations increased by 7.5%, from $3.275 trillion to $3.521 trillion. Year-over-year departmental comparisons are here.
• The federal operating deficit increased from $1.205 trillion to $1.435 trillion, a stunning 19% increase.
• Thanks to increased off-budget activity, the national debt increased by $1.652 trillion during fiscal 2010, $217 billion more than the official deficit of $1.294 trillion.

The press, of course, is noting the reduction in the reported annual deficit from $1.416 trillion to $1.294 trillion, and “somehow” missing the fact that real out-of-pocket spending continues to explode.

Go to the column for a walkthrough and more details.

____________________________________________________

UPDATE: Even though payments to Fan and Fred were kept out of the analysis for the purpose of getting to what’s going on with the government’s “regular” operations, it should be noted that those payments, which deceased from $91 billion in fiscal to 2009 to $40 billion last year, may increase significantly during the next few years:

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailouts could hit $363 billion, report says

The government’s estimate, projected through 2013, represents a worst-case scenario that assumes a double-dip recession. The mortgage giants have received about $148 billion in taxpayer funds.

The cost for the huge government bailouts of housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will grow — and possibly more than double to $363 billion — over the next three years.

But the final taxpayer loss depends mainly on the health of the economy and the real estate market, a federal regulator said Thursday.

The mounting cost of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts has drawn fire from Republicans. They have blamed the firms for triggering the subprime mortgage problems during the housing boom and have blasted the Obama administration for continuing to prop them up.

Contrary to the implication, you don’t have to be a Republican or a conservative to be outraged over this.

UPDATE 2: Thanks to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for the nice write-up.

From John Parker at Pajamas Media (links are in original):

This election season, spare a moment to remember the bravest Korean you’ve never heard of.

On October 10, Dr. Hwang Jang-Yop, the highest-ranking North Korean defector in history, passed away at his home in Seoul. Hwang apparently died of natural causes, a surprising fate for a man who was literally hunted to the last day of his life by the North Korean regime. In April, two North Korean agents were arrested in Seoul before they could carry out their mission to assassinate Hwang, and on October 20, the existence of yet another assassin, Lee Dong-Sam, was announced by the South Korean government.

Hwang’s funeral, on October 14, was attended by a virtual Who’s Who of South Korean society, including former President Kim Young-Sam, former Grand National Party leader Chung Mong-Joon, former presidential candidate and Liberty Forward Party leader Lee Hoi-Chang, former Chosun Ilbo Chief Editor Ryu Geun-Il, and many other journalists, defectors, and North Korean human rights activists. The elderly scholar was buried in a special part of Daejeon National Cemetery reserved for extraordinary contributors to the Korean nation. …

Go here for the rest of Parker’s column.

Not that it justifies the horrible consequences of leaking classifed information, thereby endangering our troops, our allies, our friends, and their families (of course it doesn’t), but the WikiLeaked documents being carried at outlets like the New York Times are revealing some truths that are proving quite inconvenient for Iraq war opponents.

Earlier today (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted that a post at one of Wired.com’s blogs (“WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results”) rnoted that “for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.” Add that to the already large pile of evidence that totally debunks the leftist folklore that “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Now Andrew Bolt at Melbourne, Australia’s Herald-Sun (HT Instapundit) tells us that another leftist myth about the war’s impact on Iraq’s general populace is getting retired to the ash heap of false history (links are in original):

I’m not sure it’s what WikiLeaks intended, but its latest leaks reveal that the infamous Lancet paper which claimed the US-led liberation of Iraq cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis in fact exaggerated the death toll by at least 600 per cent …

As might be expected, that the documents completely debunk Lancet is not the message head WikiLeaker Julian Assange wants to deliver, as reported in Australia’s Daily Telegraph:

Leaks show Iraq a bloodbath, says Assange

NEWLY released Wikileak documents on Iraq give a blow-by-blow account of the “bloodbath” in the country over six years, the whisteblower’s founder Julian Assange said.

Speaking to CNN after the documents’ publication, he said they presented a much more straightforward picture than material on the conflict in Afghanistan previously published by Wikileaks.

“These documents reveal six years of the Iraq war at a ground level detail – the troops on the ground, their reports, what they were seeing, what they were saying and what they were doing,” he told the broadcaster.

The Iraq documents cover the deaths of some 104,000 people over six years – compared the deaths of 20,000 people in Afghanistan detailed in previously released papers.

“We’re talking about a five times greater kill rate in Iraq, really a comparative bloodbath compared to Afghanistan,” he told CNN.

The Iraq documents gave “not just the aggregate, not just that, you know, ‘in Fallujah a lot of people died,’ but rather the deaths of each person, with precise geographic coordinates and the operation under which they died”, he said.

Gosh, isn’t it nice that the enemy will be able to identify Iraqis who died by name and whose side they were fighting on, so they can go after their families, either to kill them or recruit them, depending on the circumstances? What a guy this Mr. Assange is.

Media outlets have given the horridly designed and utterly flawed Lancet work undue credence for years, even though in January 2008, Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon at the National Journal utterly discredited their work.

Blogger Tigerhawk notes the interesting timing of the report’s original release (links were in original):

Three weeks before the decisive 2006 Congressional elections in the United States, the British medical journal Lancet published and — here’s the key part – promoted via press release a study that purported to show massively more “excess deaths” in Iraq than had been reported by any other organization of any political persuasion. Now, not only has the study been repeatedly discredited, but it appears to have been a propaganda project from the get-go …

It would also appear that Lancet’s ridiculous estimate was too “good” to check for the congenitally antiwar press to check just before the 2006 mid-term elections.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Back in March, in the runup to the final ObamaCare vote in the House, the establishment press was thrilled when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report estimating that ObamaCare would, in the CBO’s words, “produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue.” At the time, Brent Baker at NewsBusters noted how positively giddy Katie Couric at CBS News was over the CBO’s estimate. Couric even claimed: “The price tag certified.”

If only. It turns out that the key word in the CBO statement was “direct.”

On Friday, CBO head Doug Elmendorf made a presentation (HT Jed Graham at IBD) at the Schaeffer Center of the University of Southern California entitled “Economic Effects of the March Health Legislation.” In it, as shown below, he revealed a pesky and significant indirect effect of the legislation. In the process, he also introduced us to a new economic disease (my name) — ObamaCare Withdrawn Labor Syndrome, or “OWL”:

“Small”? Given that about 140 million people are working, “roughly half a percent” amounts to about 700,000 jobs (somewhat higher than the number Graham used in his column).

Gee Doug, if there’s any evidence of the negatively dynamic effect of ObamaCare on the job market and the economy as a whole in the your “certified” March report (I know, that’s not your word), I’m not seeing it. (My guess is that Congress specifically directed CBO to ignore dynamic effects, and the CBO’s hands were tied.)

When priced out, Elmendorf’s estimate of the effect of OWL Syndrome negates a large percentage of the March CBO report’s alleged deficit reduction. If 700,000 workers with average earnings of about $35,000 a year acquire OWL Syndrome and no longer choose to work, the lost earnings to the economy will amount to about $25 billion. As a result, payments into Social Security and Medicare will go down by about $3.8 billion, and federal income tax collections will fall by $6 billion or so. That’s almost $10 billion a year. If these negative effects don’t kick in until 2014 (they will probably occur gradually until then), reduced tax collections alone will wipe out about $59 billion (6 years at $9.8 billion each year) of the CBO’s projected 2010-2019 savings.

This is before attempting to quantify the increased unemployment, food stamp, welfare and other entitlement payouts which will surely occur, and which will surely be significant. States and localities will also probably lose another $2 billion in income and sale tax revenue. Piling on, all of this is before considering the negative multiplier effects Keynesians so love to positively cite when discussing the supposed benefits of government economic stimulus.

Does anyone think the establishment press will take an interest in the effects of OWL Syndrome? My guess is that they won’t give a hoot.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

The WikiLeaksters seem to have inadvertently done history a bit of a favor in the their obsession, with the help of heavy-breathing media mouthpieces like the New York Times, to release classified military documents.

It seems that some of those documents reveal the utter untruthfulness of a core claim of Iraq War opponents, namely that “We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

This contention, not nuanced in any way (i.e., not “no stockpiles” or “not that many,” but instead absolutely none), is part of leftist folklore. Here are just a few example of so-called “mainstream” or “respected” liberal sources found to have made that exact contention in a brief Internet searches this morning:

• Washington Post; August 17, 2004 — “Why Kerry Is Right About Iraq,” by Fareed Zakaria.
• Rev. Joseph Lowry; February 2006, at the funeral of Coretta Scott King (substituting “over there” for “in Iraq”).
• UK Guardian; April 19, 2007 — “Iraq is not part of war on terror, says top UK diplomat”
• Financial Times; August 30, 2005 — via Trita Parsi, then described as “a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University.”

But at Wired Magazine’s Danger Room (HTs to Ace and Gateway Pundit via an e-mailer), Noah Shachtman identifies substantial contrary evidence in the WikiLeaks docs to add that what has already been accumulated. Shachtman tries to minimize the impact by overstating the Bush administration’s actual position, but that doesn’t change what the WikiLeaks docs contain:

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

… The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.

Sorry, Mr. Shachtman, the “diehards” are those on the left who have never backed away from “no WMDs” claim, which has once again (previous examples here, here, here, and here, to identify just a few) been proven to be demonstrably false.

Strategy Page correctly begs to differ about the degree of the potential danger:

Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians.

Gateway Pundit wonders: “Do you suppose this will make any headlines?” Prognosis: Doubtful. There’s too much at stake in protecting the left’s folklore.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.